So the assassin is evil but the slayer is not?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So, apart from poison use (which is a core mechanic of several classes), what class features does the assassin offer? The only ones that really scream "I'm an evil black hat" are the ones involving corpse abuse (true death, angel of death). The rest are either enhancements to the death attack or class features shared with other classes.

So really, other than the ability to get a death attack four levels earlier, what does the assassin offer that the slayer does not?

It seems that, with the publishing of the slayer class, the only reason the assassin PrC is evil is because you have to kill someone for no reason other than to join the assassins.

I hate to say it, but you need to bring back the assassin's spellcasting ability, because you've made a base class that does all the same things, minus the ability to turn a corpse to dust without a handy pile of sticks and tar.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
It seems that, with the publishing of the slayer class, the only reason the assassin PrC is evil is because you have to kill someone for no reason other than to join the assassins.

Seems like a pretty good reason to be evil to me.


Taking payment for the purpose of killing a specific targeted individual is not considered a "good" action.

Mind you, being a murder-hobo and rifling through the corpses of the slain is not thought highly of either.


24 people marked this as a favorite.
Brox RedGloves wrote:

Taking payment for the purpose of killing a specific targeted individual is not considered a "good" action.

Mind you, being a murder-hobo and rifling through the corpses of the slain is not thought highly of either.

Everyone's all happy when you smite the evil blighting the land. But you start rummaging through evil's pockets and suddenly you've crossed a line.


I agree with the OP, there isn't really a reason to play the assassin when you have the Slayer or Ninja. There isn't really anything special about it either(flavour vise). Those few unique spells would greatly help in my opinion.
However I don't ever see them rechanging Prestige Class, which makes me a sad panda :( .

The Exchange

Brox you are 100% wrong. and i will explain.
the king offers all the knights of his realm 1000 gold to slay trolls. the knights save the kingdom by killing said trolls. they are good guys.

the assassin also has abilities to incapacitate people which i would see as a pretty cool ability. in our home games i let anyone with a good reason take the prestige. too many people cling onto the whole "alignment tobacle". its freaking flavor people. some classes like barbarian being non lawful or monk being lawful or paladin being lg is just common sense. to say that a duelist type that kills from the shadows in the name of the king is a bad guy is just ridiculous. use your head and remember dm discretion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Keep in mind that the prestige class is over 10 years old at this point, having been directly imported into PFSRD from the open content of D&D 3rd edition, and the alignment restriction came with it. In a lot of ways, the slayer represents how Paizo would have done a base class version of the assassin.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Keep in mind that the prestige class is over 10 years old at this point, having been directly imported into PFSRD from the open content of D&D 3rd edition, and the alignment restriction came with it. In a lot of ways, the slayer represents how Paizo would have done a base class version of the assassin.

This. The Assassin PrC being evil is a carryover from 3x, nothing more. The slayer, like the ninja is Paizo's approach to the concept without reflection of the PrC. If you want to play an assassin like class and not be evil, you've got ninja or slayer. If you want an evil assassin, you can still choose the latter two, just take evil as an alignment. If you want to emulate the PrC more, take the PrC take evil alignment and you're done.

I'm sure you could houserule Assassin PrC as not evil, if its that important to you. Otherwise there's no reason to forcibly change an existing class or PrC, because of new classes created. These are options, people.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This prestige class does not represent loyal knights to the king who save the kingdom from trolls.

It represents a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, as a profession for no other reason than for their love of death and/or money.

These two concepts are very different, and wholly incompatible with one another. One is clearly benevolent, the other obviously not.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

This prestige class does not represent loyal knights to the king who save the kingdom from trolls.

It represents a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, as a profession for no other reason than for their love of death and/or money.

These two concepts are very different, and wholly incompatible with one another. One is clearly benevolent, the other obviously not.

Why can't loyal knights who save the kingdom from trolls also happen to be vicious killers?


^^


3 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This prestige class does not represent loyal knights to the king who save the kingdom from trolls.

It represents a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, as a profession for no other reason than for their love of death and/or money.

These two concepts are very different, and wholly incompatible with one another. One is clearly benevolent, the other obviously not.

Why can't loyal knights who save the kingdom from trolls also happen to be vicious killers?

That's the wrong way to ask the question. The proper way is "why can't a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, [...] for no other reason than their love of death and/or money be a loyal knight?"

And the answer is obvious -- a loyal knight wouldn't kill anyone for no other reason than their love of death and/or money, since such a person would have no qualms about killing the king himself, and that's not loyal.


chaoseffect wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This prestige class does not represent loyal knights to the king who save the kingdom from trolls.

It represents a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, as a profession for no other reason than for their love of death and/or money.

These two concepts are very different, and wholly incompatible with one another. One is clearly benevolent, the other obviously not.

Why can't loyal knights who save the kingdom from trolls also happen to be vicious killers?

No one says they can't be, they certainly can be. But, as written, the assassin has to be.

They aren't the same, but as mentioned, gm discretion can certainly change that.


The assassin class should include a bounty hunter option, that rather than having to kill someone is waived as is the death attack (kill option).

It is very easy to house-rule, but the game designers could have given it from the get go.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
And the answer is obvious -- a loyal knight wouldn't kill anyone for no other reason than their love of death and/or money, since such a person would have no qualms about killing the king himself, and that's not loyal.

"I'd kill anyone for enough gold pieces to make that awesome jingling sound they make when you have enough of them. Except for you. I like you."

Even evil dudes have people they care about. Perhaps the king is in that category. I'd say having a group of fanatically loyal psychopaths on his side might even be why that king managed to become and stay king in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
I'd say having a group of fanatically loyal psychopaths on his side might even be why that king managed to become and stay king in the first place.

Absolutely. And those fanatically loyal psychopaths are (evil) slayers, not assassins, because assassins are by definition not fanatically loyal to anything except the sound of coin.


Ravingdork wrote:

This prestige class does not represent loyal knights to the king who save the kingdom from trolls.

It represents a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, as a profession for no other reason than for their love of death and/or money.

These two concepts are very different, and wholly incompatible with one another. One is clearly benevolent, the other obviously not.

A class represents whatever you want it to represent. Saying my 'assassin' can't be the guy who wants to take out corrupt leaders is idiotic to say the least.

3e amusingly released a class called 'the Avenger' on their website, which was an exact duplicate of the Assassin, save for that utterly retarded Special: line and the alignment.

In other words, to say it yet again, class is not concept, concept is not class. You can be a member of the class 'Assassin' without being a member of the profession 'Assassin', just as one can be of the class Barbarian without being an unwashed savage.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'd say having a group of fanatically loyal psychopaths on his side might even be why that king managed to become and stay king in the first place.

Absolutely. And those fanatically loyal psychopaths are (evil) slayers, not assassins, because assassins are by definition not fanatically loyal to anything except the sound of coin.

By definition assassins are people who carry out assassinations. Saying they are ONLY loyal to coin by default is a stretch I think, though that is one way for them to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'd say having a group of fanatically loyal psychopaths on his side might even be why that king managed to become and stay king in the first place.
Absolutely. And those fanatically loyal psychopaths are (evil) slayers, not assassins, because assassins are by definition not fanatically loyal to anything except the sound of coin.

The original assassins/Hashashin were ultra-loyal religious fanatics who weren't interested in money.

While the 'evil only' flavor of the class is pretty pointless, the class features aren't that good either and there are better alternatives (ninja, slayer) so you might as well just ignore the whole thing.


Zhayne wrote:
In other words, to say it yet again, class is not concept, concept is not class. You can be a member of the class 'Assassin' without being a member of the profession 'Assassin', just as one can be of the class Barbarian without being an unwashed savage.

Well, except for one specific class that shall not be mentioned in the vain hope that massive arguments will not unfold. That class will never be allowed to be separated from its concept, or its own restrictions. -_-


chaoseffect wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This prestige class does not represent loyal knights to the king who save the kingdom from trolls.

It represents a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, as a profession for no other reason than for their love of death and/or money.

These two concepts are very different, and wholly incompatible with one another. One is clearly benevolent, the other obviously not.

Why can't loyal knights who save the kingdom from trolls also happen to be vicious killers?

Too close to RL history??? Breaks the suspension of disbelief??? (yeah I'm reaching here...)

@Nephril: Not to pick nits here, and also not being a wiseguy; but what did you mean by "tobacle"? Tobacco debacle? Toby the Oracle? something else???


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I never get any of these threads. I come here sometimes when I'm bored, and I want to see how my hobby is evolving b/c I'm curious. But... I see others raising their fist to the sky "Why doesn't Paizo do things the way I think they should be done!" To which my answer is always, "Who cares?" Really. Who cares? Think for yourselves. Do it your way. Is it that important. Sure, you're the buyer and if there is enough of you, maybe you can sway opinion... but run a game the way you want it. It is really puzzling to me, everyone once in a while I'll make a post like this- and won't get an answer. So I guess the folks making the threads are really that hooked in to the paizo teat that they can't see that this is an imagination game that really should encourage you to think for yourself. Not... Rule X says this... oh noes, that means I'm stuck. I can't make my dream character.

The Exchange

tobacle is probably just jargon from the area i live meaning a messy event or happening. sorry the slang comes out from time to time when i cant think of another word that fits as well.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

lets look at classes for what they are. groups of abilities. the flavor text is just that FLAVOR it is not a predetermined play style nor is it a requirement to play the class. if it were a requirement they would put it under REQUIREMENTS.

and Dork i am completely surprised that someone with your history would make a comment claiming an rp class should be limited to a stereo type. i mean how completely unimaginative.

screw it i am a pure neutral assassin that defends the forest by killing those that trespass into the oldest parts where the spirits rest.

i am a lawful good assassin that hunts down heretics and blasphemers for the church.

i am a chaotic evil assassin that kills people for a price.

oh wait sorry only one of these is viable because of some FLAVOR TEXT.

honestly people these books are guidelines. use them as such. until they use cement instead of ink nothing is set in stone.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
I never get any of these threads. I come here sometimes when I'm bored, and I want to see how my hobby is evolving b/c I'm curious. But... I see others raising their fist to the sky "Why doesn't Paizo do things the way I think they should be done!" To which my answer is always, "Who cares?" Really. Who cares? Think for yourselves. Do it your way. Is it that important. Sure, you're the buyer and if there is enough of you, maybe you can sway opinion... but run a game the way you want it. It is really puzzling to me, everyone once in a while I'll make a post like this- and won't get an answer. So I guess the folks making the threads are really that hooked in to the paizo teat that they can't see that this is an imagination game that really should encourage you to think for yourself. Not... Rule X says this... oh noes, that means I'm stuck. I can't make my dream character.

No system can accomodate every dream. My dream character is the Doctor, but no matter what shennanigans you invent, Pathfinder is simply NOT the game system to run adventures in the spirit or flavor of Dr. Who. or James Bond for that matter.


Corrik wrote:
Brox RedGloves wrote:

Taking payment for the purpose of killing a specific targeted individual is not considered a "good" action.

Mind you, being a murder-hobo and rifling through the corpses of the slain is not thought highly of either.

Everyone's all happy when you smite the evil blighting the land. But you start rummaging through evil's pockets and suddenly you've crossed a line.

Bethesda please go.

Sovereign Court

There was an assassin base class in 3.0 from Green Ronin the Assassin's handbook, but it was very decired back then, as "too powerful" ...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How you want to define assassins is not the point here.

The game has defined assassins as evil folks loyal only to the coin who kill anyone for money. Those people qualify for this PrC.

That's it. Not agreeing with that definition is moot. If you want to rule your assassins are different, go ahead and house rule.

==Aelryinth


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

How you want to define assassins is not the point here.

The game has defined assassins as evil folks loyal only to the coin who kill anyone for money. Those people qualify for this PrC.

That's it. Not agreeing with that definition is moot. If you want to rule your assassins are different, go ahead and house rule.

==Aelryinth

No, RAW says to enter the PrC you need to kill someone for no other reason than "Guys I want to join your club." That is the only mechanic there relating to the discussion, and there is a conspicuous lack of "must be willing to murder anyone at all for money" and "must only care about money."

Hell, if you actually were motivated by money during kill requirement to enter the class it wouldn't work because you did it for a reason besides becoming an assassin for its own sake.


About the flavour not being rules. Ehh, one way to look at it is if it is in the rule book it is a rule. Everything in the books are rules but all rules are variable, which is the number one thing to remember as a GM. They are ALL rules but you can change the rules. There are the powers and abilities and how they work, then the description of how members of that class generally act. If you character doesn't, at least slightly fit that description then how did they earn being that class? It is not like you just wake up one day and say "I'm a cleric now!" or "Today I am a sorcerer" or whatever. Those descriptions are there for a reason. Of course, GM can change whatever they want.

For the assassin, this is an example I love giving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeT7MzDcpeg The operative from Serenity. Just because an assassin works for a king and kills villains only to cleanse the land of evil, well, they are still evil themselves. This one in the scene is just self aware and I love it. When an assassin does not believe there is anything evil about what they are doing, they are delusional and self justifying their actions. Like that old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I know that can apply to plenty of classes but that is up to each group and GM for how it works in their game.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

chaoseffect wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

How you want to define assassins is not the point here.

The game has defined assassins as evil folks loyal only to the coin who kill anyone for money. Those people qualify for this PrC.

That's it. Not agreeing with that definition is moot. If you want to rule your assassins are different, go ahead and house rule.

==Aelryinth

No, RAW says to enter the PrC you need to kill someone for no other reason than "Guys I want to join your club." That is the only mechanic there relating to the discussion, and there is a conspicuous lack of "must be willing to murder anyone at all for money" and "must only care about money."

Hell, if you actually were motivated by money during kill requirement to enter the class it wouldn't work because you did it for a reason besides becoming an assassin for its own sake.

It's about money. He wants to join the group for money. The kill is just a qualifier that gets his foot in the door.

Or another way of putting it, he offs someone to prove he can off someone in cold blood because he was ordered to, not caring about god, king or country. He knows the person telling him is profiting from the deed, because that's the kind of person he's working for.

Someone killing for a higher cause is not what the PrC is intended to invoke, After all, the Red Mantis are assassins, too, but they have a holy calling coloring everything they do.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is your assertion that everything he does it about money isn't anywhere in the actual class mechanics or even the flavor text. The class says the assassin is a cold, detached professional killer. The rest? That's all you adding on to it. It's certainly a valid way to flavor it, but it is hardly the one true undisputed RAW way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
It is really puzzling to me, everyone once in a while I'll make a post like this- and won't get an answer.

Probably because you're not asking a question, apart from "Who cares?", which is rhetorical.

Robert Carter 58 wrote:
So I guess the folks making the threads are really that hooked in to the paizo teat that they can't see that this is an imagination game that really should encourage you to think for yourself. Not... Rule X says this... oh noes, that means I'm stuck. I can't make my dream character.

Unless you're the GM (which you're not, if you're hoping to play a non-evil assassin), to change the rules you have to get agreement from the people you're playing with, which annoys a lot of people. Where does it end? Why not have everyone invent their own class from scratch?

(Although in this one case, I think 'who cares?' is fairly reasonable.)


Professional as the adjective means someone that received payment for their craft. So a professional killer, rather than expert killer, means someone that receives payment to kill.


Jaçinto wrote:
Professional as the adjective means someone that received payment for their craft. So a professional killer, rather than expert killer, means someone that receives payment to kill.

Just like most PCs regardless of class =P, but a valid point.

Still I'm not seeing where the insistence that by RAW an Assassin cannot possess loyalty and must be willing to murder their grandmother for the right price comes into play.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
The thing is your assertion that everything he does it about money isn't anywhere in the actual class mechanics or even the flavor text. The class says the assassin is a cold, detached professional killer. The rest? That's all you adding on to it. It's certainly a valid way to flavor it, but it is hardly the one true undisputed RAW way.

So it is. But 'detached' is the operative word here in your own description.

The assassin PrC does NOT have a higher cause. He kills someone because he was told to kill them. NO justification, no 'I'm doing this for the greater good', no 'saving the innocent'. He was told to kill someone, and he did it.

he could be depraved, a sociopath, sadistic, totally arrogant, whatever...but he's not doing it for a higher cause.

You want higher causes, Red Mantis is one, Lion Blades of Taldor are another (with a bardic twist) and etc etc etc as far as special operatives go.

The assassin PrC just murders. Twinkies want it for the death attack and the spell list.

I shouldn't be saying this, but assassin PrC complaints are basically Paladin complaints from the other end. Basically people want the stuff, but that silly alignment thing doesn't fit their vision, so obviously the class is built wrong.

meh.

==Aelryinth


Matthew Downie wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
It is really puzzling to me, everyone once in a while I'll make a post like this- and won't get an answer.

Probably because you're not asking a question, apart from "Who cares?", which is rhetorical.

Robert Carter 58 wrote:
So I guess the folks making the threads are really that hooked in to the paizo teat that they can't see that this is an imagination game that really should encourage you to think for yourself. Not... Rule X says this... oh noes, that means I'm stuck. I can't make my dream character.

Unless you're the GM (which you're not, if you're hoping to play a non-evil assassin), to change the rules you have to get agreement from the people you're playing with, which annoys a lot of people. Where does it end? Why not have everyone invent their own class from scratch?

(Although in this one case, I think 'who cares?' is fairly reasonable.)

I guess I've always been a reasonable GM and allowed minor changes like this as long as game balance wasn't affected. Neutral assassins? Go for it. Non LG paladins? Sure, why not. Usually when a player wants something like this, he has a concept in mind for his character- which should trump something in a rule book. I DO realize that not everyone is cool, but shouldn't THAT be the goal... let's be cool. Because, realistically there will never be " a perfect rulebook that fits every scenario and works perfectly for every game and every scenario ever!" That's a pipe dream. "Let's all be cool," works. "Let's talk to each other," works.

Not perfectly, but it's better than "Please, Paizo, let me buy more product, and beg you to change something so that EVERYONE will do it a way that makes sense to me" (which is what 90% of these threads seem to be to me). Yikes, that's nonsense. Especially since with a little houseruling and talking to one another, you can make a game that works well for you and your group, which is all that really matters.


For the part about most PCs, I have played people that do their best to not kill. My last character only killed once late in the game and ended up retiring. I tend to go with "If your instinct is to kill, give no quarter, and never offer surrender, maybe it is time to really think about yourself."

Of course Assassin's can have loyalty. Assassin guilds exist, royal assassins, etc... I would say the assassin that would murder their own grandma for the right price is the ninja, at least according to the shinobu code I read way back since to them, family means nothing and a contract is always more important. Think I still have that somewhere.

Oh for earlier when someone said RL assassin/hashashin never cared about payment, yeah no. They were paid in hashish. They were paid in drugs so they could see what they thought was heaven from what I remember. Yes they had goals, but they were also drug addicts.

Oh, an example of the pathfinder/D&D assassin PrC and the kind of person that would willingly become one. Tea Time from Discworld.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

he could be depraved, a sociopath, sadistic, totally arrogant, whatever...but he's not doing it for a higher cause.

The assassin PrC just murders. Twinkies want it for the death attack and the spell list.

My point is that saying a higher cause does not exist with an Assassin may be implied in the class flavor text (the same kind of text that explains Fighters are "rousing the hearts of armies..." yeah), but it lacks mechanical basis. Assassins do not have some sort of "Assassins Code" class feature.

A side note, Assassin's Death Attack is strictly worse than the Ninja/Slayer version and Assassins don't get spells like they did in 3.5. If someone is picking Assassin to be "uber leet" they are doing it wrong.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

There's assassins as a job description and Assassins the PrC. 'Noble paladins' sworn to Asmodeus and Paladins the PC class are also two different things.

The class has its definition. Just deal with it...or play the ninja, since its obviously superior, right?

It lost the spellcasting? Sorry, didn't remember that. Too used to the strange builds you'd see because of it (like the Theurge builds with assassin on the other side for dual Int-based casting).

==Aelryinth


I do find it pretty annoying it has to be evil.

I like the flavor and some of the mechanic of death attack (and the fact you can paralyze with it). It is EXTREMELY weak though and hard to justify deep levels. I really want it to work more but just 10+assassin lv + int isn't really usuable in some cases.

I would love an update though. Preferably make the assassination ability usuable in a fight (either make the studying free actions), and offer ways at higher level to do it faster.. More than the lv 9 abilities' once a day.
It needs some boosts. I would def make a quicker study for death strike or allow it to work within sneak attack range. I'd also snag Arcane Trickster's ability to make 3 attacks aday sneak attack ones. I'd also give them the option to increase the Death attack's DC by sacraficing Sneak attack dice (1 per die).
Stuff like that. Something so they can actually still be usuable in a striaght fight so the player is still able to do stuff with the group

As for a non evil example..

Pretty easy to have one kingdom pay an assassin to kill another king who is pondering declaring war on the kingdom or hiring the assassin to kill a rebel leader or something. From the kingdom's viewpoint that isn't evil.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You have to be pretty careful with death attacks, Insta-kills for melees are no less abused then insta-kills for casters.

And yes, the kingdom paying an assassin to off a problem is evil. They'll just justify it as 'necessary evil'. If the kingdom's answer to a problem is to murder it, that filters down quickly to the populace, you know?

There's also the fact that public assassination will likely cause a war or tit for tat killings in reply. The only way to avoid it is to be secretive, i.e. not take responsibility for your actions. That's the hallmark of evil, however you cloak it in patriotism or fanaticism.

==Aelryinth


Zwordsman, just because you say it isn't evil doesn't mean it is not evil. Look at the youtube video in my previous post about the operative. The assassin is evil. Their entire point is to kill people on contract. They are not great in combat because that is not what they are. A straight up fight is not how an assassin works. Rather they are more likely to walk up to an unsuspecting person and stab them in the kidney.

Generally, nobody thinks they are evil so that kingdom thing does not work. Hitler surely didn't think he was evil so anything his followers did was considered good to them. Still was evil though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
The class has its definition. Just deal with it...

You mean the flavor blurb? That's hardly a basis for anything unless you're telling me you think every single class is being played wrong if they don't follow their paragraph description exactly. Mechanically we have two things to work with:

1. Must be evil
2. Must commit a kill just to become an assassin

Neither of those things is a smoking gun saying your way is the only way or the "right" way. The PrC being a weak class really has nothing to do with the conversation though.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

And you are blaming me for the definition of the class you just quoted? There's a thousand ways to play assassins, and even the Assassin PrC. But the class says you must be evil, and you must kill just to become an assassin.

No higher cause mentioned. If your flavor conflicts with that, it's not my problem nor my fault.

==Aelryinth


I think an assassin could be neutral, maybe even misguided and good. It is well known that many governments of the world train assassins from a relatively young age. If your just "serving your country"(How many heinous actions has this statement caused??) as the slogan goes you may think your one of the good guys. Its actually a popular theme in spy shows and movies where someone thinks they are one of the good guys and find out they work for bad guys.


Aelryinth wrote:

And you are blaming me for the definition of the class you just quoted? There's a thousand ways to play assassins, and even the Assassin PrC. But the class says you must be evil, and you must kill just to become an assassin.

No higher cause mentioned. If your flavor conflicts with that, it's not my problem nor my fault.

==Aelryinth

What mechanical definition did I quote again that said "cannot have a higher cause?" Or are you saying that since no higher cause was mentioned it cannot possibly exist? If that's your argument would you say Fighter by definition cannot be religious because it is not specified that they are in their description?


Yup. it's certainly very dangerous, but a GM wouldn't let a player take the class if they weren't ok with it (outside of PFS I guess. but I dunno if you can be evil in that. I dn't play it). As it stands I couldn't make one that really could use it.. the best Icould get was vivi alchy into assassin, with coagnatigen to boost int. Even then it really only worked on mooks, I originally got it (I was evil in a backstory but became good prior to the start of the game) my main usage was to try and avoid killing people with it's paralyzing effect but it barely worked. Though i did knock out the enemy wizard who was focused on the group (as per the plan). Granted that was quazi usuable due to the "alert" kinda tag on death attack.

Balancing is certainly hard though. I suppose yo ucould keep the current DC but if they succeed maybe have it do extra damage so it doesn't feel as pointless. With a sap, nonlethal, sap master feat line, and trying to paralyze, then if the ysave the instant KO they at least might be close to knock out. It's pretty difficult to be at all stealthy in these games which lends itself to either take the straight approach and just rock the killing, or do the caster thing and level everything. It'd be nice to be able to stealth scout better.

Though maybe my gm's tend to make stronger mooks.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

'assassin' the job covers many things. Any of those could fit into almost any class.

'Assassin the PrC' is much more narrowly defined. People are confusing the two.

They are not the same thing. Killing people you are told to kill and believe must die can be done by anyone. Killing people because you don't care, you're good at it, and it's your job, is more along what the PrC represents. That, and you'll kill ANYONE you're told to. It's what you had to do to get in, after all.

I'm reminded of a Sin City short comic where the aspirant assassin has to murder the only man she ever loved, and who still loves her, to prove worthy to join the club. She cries, but she goes ahead and does it, because she was told that's what it took, and she's in.

==Aelryinth


I honestly would think Neutral or Evil as the req makes more sense.

Evil represents enjoying killing anything your paid to
Neutral represents the guy who doesn't view killing as anything. It's just a paycheck. It's not good or bad, doesn't enjoy it or hate it. It also represents the guy who wants to make his skills the absolute best and will take any challenge.

I think all 3 of those fit pretty well with this PRC as for what it's used for in this game.

The neutral guy who just has a paycheck is represented pretty well by assassin+sleepless detective actually. I've always wanted ot play that. Was never sure what class to pick prior. Though with the new slayer class that fits pretty well . Or feral hunter.

1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / So the assassin is evil but the slayer is not? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.