So I've been running Pathfinder with my group for a while now, and I'm slowly catching on to the changes made to 3.5 (between work and school I haven't had the time to read the Core Book cover to cover). I was statting up an Assassin NPC today and I noticed that Pathfinder has removed the spell-casting ability from the Prestige Class. I was curious how others felt about this change and why it was implemented. I can see its excisement as a balance against the other abilities granted to the class, and I'm not exactly complaining about the change: it just kinda jumped out at when I realized I'd have to give this NPC some magical gear to replicate some of the old 3.5 Assassin spells (spells I had designed combat strategies around). Anyway, any thoughts about the change would be welcomed.
I noticed this last night as well. I had to do a double-take and check for a hidden spell chart somewhere, and I even looked for an assassin spell list in the PRD. When I realized it was gone, I was actually pretty happy. Spellcasting assassins have never made a whole lot of sense to me, so I'm happy with the change.
|
Looks solid to me.
Quickstep is fine, though can't you use acrobatics to do that anyway?
Acrobatics can be used to move more than 5' without provoking AoO, but still uses a move action which limits you to 1 attack. The purpose behind Quickstep is to move 10 feet to activate skirmish while counting as only a 5 foot step so you can still take a full round action such as full attack. Otherwise you are limited to a single standard action attack with a move action.
My guess is he was talking about the DC 40 'tumble' check presented in oriental adventures that allows a 5' step to cover 10 feet instead. It was one of few ways to get skirmish on a full attack in 3.5 (other than finding a way to milk extra move actions of course)
I rather like quick-step, and I'm considering stealing it from you to make high BAB required general use feat.
/snicker
wrong thread there buddy...
|
|
Yeah, I know, it seems to happen whenever somebody hits send for multiple threads too quickly.
Now, the post I had been trying to send here...
I guess the magic-less assassin works ok... for an NPC at least. But for a PC, it's way underpowered. Think about it. All they get of note is sneak/death attack, poison use, and a couple super minor stealth abilities.
If your dead determined to use the PF assassin without magic, this is what I'd do.
First, give it full BAB. Next, give it a good will save. And you would probably want to add 1 or 2 combat bonus feats to it's progression somewhere a ways in.
Because honestly... I'd rather have rogue or ranger or even fighter levels than levels in the current assassin.
Really? I like the current assassin. Especially for the fact that he can kill someone. Leave the body there and no one would know otherwise until they interacted with it. Think of the tactical flavor THAT brings up. This is a case of player preference, which is why I brought up the Red Mantis Assassins, but its still a very good class in my opinion. I just felt that the spells added to the base assassin were clunky and unreliable.
Red mantis it seems to work for, really really well.
The spells and the Hide in Plain sight were the only features of the Assassin PrC that were worth a damn-- and the only thing that gave it a reason to exist as its own separate class.
Poison Use should be a Rogue Talent and Hide in Plain Sight should be an Advanced Rogue Talent.
I don't really like the magic less assassin tbh. If people wanted that, they should just stick with rogues. After all, there isn't much to the assassin class at all now, and like someone said, it's underpowered even compared to the rogue.
In 3.5 I actually added several spells to the assassins spell list I thought he should have had.
Lots of good thoughts, here. I think that just raising the BAB alone would make this class more attractive. An assassin, even more than a fighter, is a heartless KILLER with no other reason to exist. Murder-for-hire is, as the old book said, "the antithesis of weal." I'd think s/he would be a brutal, well-practiced weapon wielder, skilled in toe-to-toe combat as well as the art of assassination. It just fits the archetype, to me.
Giving it that, though, you might have a ton of rogues dipping the class for the BAB and death attack, at least in some games.
Just typing out loud. It's cool, but it's missing something, IMHO.
Creative Director
|
Giving it that, though, you might have a ton of rogues dipping the class for the BAB and death attack, at least in some games.
That, frankly, is the single best reason NOT to give the assassin a full BAB, since that's kind of a cheat.
The decision to remove spells from the assassin was one of the bigger changes we made to the prestige classes, but it's not one we did without cause. There's a lot of reasons why it's a good idea to avoid spells for the assassin (and frankly, a lot of reasons to leave them WITH spells), but in the end, various factors (including playtest feedback) sent us down the route with a spell-less assassin.
The Red Mantis assassin still has spells, though, so if you prefer assassins with magic, that's a PFRPG route you can go. And of course, the SRD assassin still works too after a few minor conversion tweaks, so that remains an option for games if you wish.
|
Creative Director
|
And yet... as it stands now... a rogue who takes full assassin levels ends up shorted on BAB AND misses out on rogue powers. Kind of looses something in the translation don't you think James?
As it stands now, I can't see any player who cares about maintaining his character's overall level of effectiveness taking the assassin PrC, a Ranger or Rogue does the assassin 'thing' better, except the small stealth tricks the assassin gets that don't make up for what they lose.
Actually, no I don't think that at all. The assassin gives the rogue MORE than he would get if he stayed a rogue. Not MUCH more. If it's a hard choice to decide to become an assassin or stay as a rogue... if the thing that tips a player over into becoming an assassin is his desire to do so as a roleplaying choice (choices that often encourage players to make the not-as-numbercrunched choice), that's fine.
It's certainly possible that we went too far in changing the assassin... but condeming rules before one actually tries them out in game is kind of jumping the gun.
Actually, I have tried them. Infact, it was on friday that I and a player sat down, and discussed his options for a new character since his last had died. He liked the concept of being an assassin, but wasn't sure about the abilities mattering. So, we went through several builds, two full rogue, two full ranger, one Rogue into Assassin, and one Ranger into Assassin, all of them with the intent of pulling the 'assassin' role, and in all cases the pure classed character far outshone the prestiged character.
I know you guys weren't trying to make the assassin worthless, and it IS good as an NPC, but it just doesn't cut it as a player choice.
Did you discuss the class or did you actually play the class?
|
Creative Director
|
Actually, I have tried them. Infact, it was on friday that I and a player sat down, and discussed his options for a new character since his last had died. He liked the concept of being an assassin, but wasn't sure about the abilities mattering. So, we went through several builds, two full rogue, two full ranger, one Rogue into Assassin, and one Ranger into Assassin, all of them with the intent of pulling the 'assassin' role, and in all cases the pure classed character far outshone the prestiged character.
Well then! Excellent! Good to hear!
In this case, the assassin obviously doesn't work for you, and you SHOULD consider rolling back to the 3.5 version, or maybe just giving the PRPG assassin in your game the same spellcasting ability as it had in 3.5.
And if it makes a good NPC, then that's actually cool too. I know that the conventional wisdom says that everything must be a viable and balanced choice for players... but sometimes it's nice to have good choices for NPCs that aren't good choices for PCs.
Did you discuss the class or did you actually play the class?We discussed it, but we went over it on paper in thorough detail, and ran a few mock battles as well, analyzing maybe eighty or so potential situations.
Was it actually played in a table? No, and I'll admit that would give a better answer, but the way we examined it was so deep I doubt we could be off by more than 15%
In general the assassin class is very good at being an assassin but maybe not so great at being in an adventuring party. So in that way perhaps it is more worthwhile as an NPC.
I kind of like the change because it is more oriented towards the classes primary role. It would also serve quite well in a stealth based adventure.
|
|
Giving it that, though, you might have a ton of rogues dipping the class for the BAB and death attack, at least in some games.That, frankly, is the single best reason NOT to give the assassin a full BAB, since that's kind of a cheat.And yet... as it stands now... a rogue who takes full assassin levels ends up shorted on BAB AND misses out on rogue powers. Kind of looses something in the translation don't you think James?
As it stands now, I can't see any player who cares about maintaining his character's overall level of effectiveness taking the assassin PrC, a Ranger or Rogue does the assassin 'thing' better, except the small stealth tricks the assassin gets that don't make up for what they lose.
I absolutely *LOVE* the PF RPG version of the assassin PrC, and I very much prefer it to its 3.5 counterpart; I never thought spells were a good "gimmick" for assassins, and I'm glad -- both as a player and a GM -- that they replaced the spells with flavorful class features that IMO fit the class perfectly.
Note that the assassin shouldn't -- at least in my opinion -- be the "optimal" PrC to rogues; just like Blackguard, and other PrCs more suited for evil characters, it was mostly meant for NPC enemies. Now, if you want to take levels in Assassin, it gives you a slightly *different* kind of highly specialized abilities (good at assassination, i.e. going on solo missions and taking people out silently and swiftly without being seen). Also, one of the design goals was to encourage staying in your class, so the new assassin is perfectly in line with that, too.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
To be fair, evil parties are fun, sometimes, for a lark or a one-off "let's be a party of evil drow next time" kind of thing. I've found them difficult to play for long because they're sort of hard to fathom.
How do you play someone with a respect for other lives that's on par with Ted Bundy? Evil is crazy, damaged; that boy ain't right!
Given the assassin's ability to take you out so hard it's hard to bring you back, s/he is a great enemy to foist on your players. A successful "hit" on one of the PCs could be their ultimate end, even at higher levels.
It's a specialty class, and really good for its purpose. A regular rogue can kill you in your sleep, too. He just can't be sure you won't be back in action after the cleric raises you. The assassin makes that very hard.
I for one, am absoulutely overjoyed at the magic-less assasin. I'm all for classes (prestige or otherwise) that rely more on unique skills and talents rather than magic. Frankly Some of WOTC offerings seemed to be nothing more than adding 'mystic' or 'arcane' to the title of an otherwise conventional class (Arcane archer? what would be wrong with a prestige class regular archer?)
Kudos Paizo.
Batts
Giving it that, though, you might have a ton of rogues dipping the class for the BAB and death attack, at least in some games.That, frankly, is the single best reason NOT to give the assassin a full BAB, since that's kind of a cheat.
The decision to remove spells from the assassin was one of the bigger changes we made to the prestige classes, but it's not one we did without cause. There's a lot of reasons why it's a good idea to avoid spells for the assassin (and frankly, a lot of reasons to leave them WITH spells), but in the end, various factors (including playtest feedback) sent us down the route with a spell-less assassin.
The Red Mantis assassin still has spells, though, so if you prefer assassins with magic, that's a PFRPG route you can go. And of course, the SRD assassin still works too after a few minor conversion tweaks, so that remains an option for games if you wish.
And now I know (cue reference to 80's cartoon here), thanks for that. We'll see how this NPC works out in play using just the PF Core rules. Like I said previously, most of the spells I had assumed he would have access to can be replicated with magical items. I suppose the issue of the viability of the class for my players will remain to be seen as none of them possess the pre-reqs (especially alignment) for entry.
As far as beefing the class up by increasing the BAB and such, I find myself hesitant to do so. While generating this NPC I felt I had a pretty good handle on his strengths and limitations and I will design the encounter to take those into account. As a DM I often find that it is in identifying the weakness of antagonists and designing around those that memorable encounters are born. Of course one must be sure not stack the deck too much against the players: in my experience it’s never fun when the DM “wins.”
I'm not a big fan of the spell-less assassin. As it stands, it feels too much like a rogue now (in fact, take a look at the rogue varient in the Campaign Setting Book...). The spells were something that made me look at the class and think "If I take this instead of rogue, I'll get a character that's pretty different".
And just an FYI, I hate the "Just use the Red Mantis Assassins" argument for a few reasons...
1) The prestige class was there first, it's going to be in the core rules, and existing assassins already have spells. So shouldn't that assassin class get priority?
2) Setting specific classes don't work to fill a niche. Anyone wanting to play campaigns like Curse of the Crimson Throne? Well the magical assassin idea is right out, since...
3) It's a seperate book. If the option was included in the main rule book that would make things a little (if only a little) different.
Magic wielding Assassins always seemed silly to me. Why does pretty much every single class have to use spells? That is a rhetorical question. I know why.
Can I have a magic-less Bard too?
Magic wielding Assassins always seemed silly to me. Why does pretty much every single class have to use spells? That is a rhetorical question. I know why.
Can I have a magic-less Bard too?
Sure. I would drop the spells put him up to Full BAB, or give him the ability to pick up some of the other classes abilities at half value about 4~5 times.
Full BAB does not really seem to fit for me. I would prefer to see some very Bard specific abilities. I have no problem if they are spell like. Just having a Bard cast spells the same exact way as other casters did not feel right to me.
I know they are suppose to be jack of all trades…but I just have a different vision of them.
Maybe I will just outright ban them.
|
|
I'm not a big fan of the spell-less assassin. As it stands, it feels too much like a rogue now (in fact, take a look at the rogue varient in the Campaign Setting Book...). The spells were something that made me look at the class and think "If I take this instead of rogue, I'll get a character that's pretty different".
And just an FYI, I hate the "Just use the Red Mantis Assassins" argument for a few reasons...
1) The prestige class was there first, it's going to be in the core rules, and existing assassins already have spells. So shouldn't that assassin class get priority?
2) Setting specific classes don't work to fill a niche. Anyone wanting to play campaigns like Curse of the Crimson Throne? Well the magical assassin idea is right out, since...
** spoiler omitted **. Besides, not everyone wants a mantis theme with their magical assassins.3) It's a seperate book. If the option was included in the main rule book that would make things a little (if only a little) different.
Right, so you can't re-flavor Red Mantis Assassin? Its really that hard to? You could just as easily re-flavor them as were wolfs or similar creatures. re-flavor them as taking on some kind of divine might or something...
I mean, I could come up with millions of ways to re-flavor that class without changing the core mechanics. In fact, thanks for the idea, I'm stealing it for a campaign now..
I think the PF version of the Assassin looks like an extremely scary NPC. Personally I am glad to see their spells get cut to gain some unique Death Attack based abilities. I think the PF team did a good job of making the assassin more of an assassin. I think the new abilities more than make up for the loss of a few mediocre spells per day, especially if you acquire the feats and items to boost your DA save DC, as this is the real focus of the class. If you took 5 lvls in rogue before you went into assassin you would only lose +1 to your over all BAB progression and you gain a lot of unique abilities that can only be attained in this class. If you were a rogue you hopefully invested in use magic device which can make up for most if not all spells the assassin lost in the PF conversion, there are also potions/items. True Death is a really good role playing ability. I have always wondered what the reason for assassinations would be if the person you kill is rich enough to be brought back to life, seems like a lot of people just overlook that minor detail. Of course even in 3.5 there were ways to trap the soul, but the assassin based ability makes good sense. Silent Death is very applicable if you have to hit a target in a crowd, when he is guarded, or say an NPC assassin needs to take out the cleric/wizard in the party before anyone realizes he is there. And then there is Swift Death, now you can study the cleric for 3 rounds, DA, then HiPS, then move right to the wizard and SD; take them both out, and with Silent Death you could do it before the party even realizes something is happening, sure they might see a cloaked figure appear for a split second then disappear just as quickly, hardly time to react though. If you are good at what you do, your first DA will come with a full attack action on a flat footed opponent and your second DA might also. This could be a good class for PCs too if your DM allows evil PCs or other than evil assassins. Personally I think they are too much of a lone wolf to be good PCs.
I think the 3.5 Assassin was a good class, but the spells were a little weak (except a few of the utilitarian spells which are always handy) and made him seem like less of an assassin and more of an arcane murderer. IMO if you want a rogue with magic you should go Arcane Trickster or just use magic device. If you want to include the 3.5 assassin class though, include it; make them another assassin’s guild.
As for sneaking up on dragons; the Death Stalker feat, in Lord’s of Madness on pg 179 makes creatures with blind sight, blind sense, and tremor sense and have to roll spot/listen checks to notice you when you hide. There are still a few other senses out there to worry about but this feat has you going in the right direction for never being detected.
To be fair, evil parties are fun, sometimes, for a lark or a one-off "let's be a party of evil drow next time" kind of thing. I've found them difficult to play for long because they're sort of hard to fathom.
How do you play someone with a respect for other lives that's on par with Ted Bundy? Evil is crazy, damaged; that boy ain't right!Given the assassin's ability to take you out so hard it's hard to bring you back, s/he is a great enemy to foist on your players. A successful "hit" on one of the PCs could be their ultimate end, even at higher levels.
It's a specialty class, and really good for its purpose. A regular rogue can kill you in your sleep, too. He just can't be sure you won't be back in action after the cleric raises you. The assassin makes that very hard.
If you treat evil as 'comic book villainy' then sure, it is difficult to do long term. But realistic, lawful evil and neutral evil characters can last as long as any of their counter parts, especially in city campaigns.
Evil does not have to express itself as 'tomorrow i will unvail my magical city destroying item', it can as easily express it self as a loving and doating husband and father, who in his business life is a slum lord, who's deep seated racism leads him to bleed his tenants dry, who abuses his position of power to gain sexual favour and force members of a community into acting as henchmen.
IMO a lot of 'neutral' characters are generally evil. They casually murder for money and steal pretty much anything not bolted down. Most groups act on little evidence and never question the word of their contact (NPC). The folks who want to play evil characters are the ones who want to play the sort of comic book evil you talk about. Or sometimes they just want to get into a desirable PrC :P
Sometimes groups are more diligent than that but a lot of D&D groups are just mercenaries and prone to casual thuggery with little provocation.
I agree that a NE or LE character, if played a certain way, would mix well into most groups, even in some cases a largely good group. But then I also let my CN players do some things that could probably be considered evil. I think that some N characters probably see their actions as a means to an end, and as long as the end isn't in the service of evil, then he is not evil. I also think that you could be LE and work for a good cause, don't have many RP examples of that but there are plenty of true life examples that would apply. Never the less, I think Assassin is a little too much a loner class to play in most parties, really nasty NPC though, could do a lot of damage to a party, especially when they have to pay for two or three high lvl spells to come back every time they die.
I also would agree that a lot of N players indeed play with a slant toward selfish and evil acts. I in fact play such a character, but I also accomplish many things that are "good". The character does what his conscience dictates at the time, he is vengeful and unforgiving, but generally toward other men who are evil. I wouldn’t say he is evil by any means.
Plenty of party's do act with less than perfect information, but the NPC contact they got their information from is the DM and they may not be expecting him to employ evil men to trick them into killing innocent people. If they thought that, they would probably be more cautious.
I agree that a NE or LE character, if played a certain way, would mix well into most groups, even in some cases a largely good group. But then I also let my CN players do some things that could probably be considered evil. I think that some N characters probably see their actions as a means to an end, and as long as the end isn't in the service of evil, then he is not evil. I also think that you could be LE and work for a good cause, don't have many RP examples of that but there are plenty of true life examples that would apply. Never the less, I think Assassin is a little too much a loner class to play in most parties, really nasty NPC though, could do a lot of damage to a party, especially when they have to pay for two or three high lvl spells to come back every time they die.
Depends on the role assassins play in your game world. The back story in my game for my assassins makes it fairly likely that they could run with PCs. My assassins guilds evolved over time (centuries) from terrorists (or freedom fighters, depends on your perspective) to more "commercial" activity, losing their ideological perspective. You have to be born into one (or adopted as an infant / toddler). Their primary function / means of income is information. Killing is flashier but rarer. Spies and assassins really. Oh, and they make a killing (pun intended) selling "insurance" to the important (or self important). Keeping an eye on up and coming adventurers (say, to peddle info on them to any enemies they make) is a typical tactic. Makes me smile just thinking about it :)
I see your point, and agree that much of any class' validity in a situation is the back-story presented. I did not mean to say that the story could not fit, but rather that the class abilities seem better suited IMHO for going it alone, sneaking past the guards rather than killing them, and focusing your deadly abilities on your intended target. After all, why kill the guards when you were only paid to kill the Count, unless there is a bonus in it for killing the guards too, perhaps to set an example.
As for being spies as well as assassins, I would think that any guild large enough and powerful enough would have spies, assassins, smugglers, house breakers, and any number of other shadowy trade craft practitioners. But I do believe there are better class choices out there for someone attempting to be a spy. But again, it really depends on how you play the character, back-story, and skill point allocation.
I see your point, and agree that much of any class' validity in a situation is the back-story presented. I did not mean to say that the story could not fit, but rather that the class abilities seem better suited IMHO for going it alone, sneaking past the guards rather than killing them, and focusing your deadly abilities on your intended target. After all, why kill the guards when you were only paid to kill the Count, unless there is a bonus in it for killing the guards too, perhaps to set an example.
As for being spies as well as assassins, I would think that any guild large enough and powerful enough would have spies, assassins, smugglers, house breakers, and any number of other shadowy trade craft practitioners. But I do believe there are better class choices out there for someone attempting to be a spy. But again, it really depends on how you play the character, back-story, and skill point allocation.
Agreed, including the being better suited for going it alone bit. But then, if you're spying on the other PCs and sizing them up for a possible hit, you *are* going it alone... and the gods help the assassin who actually becomes attached to their potential marks. I can think of one assassin who ended up paying the "insurance" to avoid having to kill her friends (who had made serious enemies). Life can get strange.
Right, so you can't re-flavor Red Mantis Assassin? Its really that hard to? You could just as easily re-flavor them as were wolfs or similar creatures. re-flavor them as taking on some kind of divine might or something...I mean, I could come up with millions of ways to re-flavor that class without changing the core mechanics. In fact, thanks for the idea, I'm stealing it for a campaign now..
And my other two reasons?
I can understand someone not wanting a magical assassin, but saying "just use this" seems like a silly excuse when the core ones were magical to begin with.
Nero24200, I would agree with your statement, it is a poor excuse. Perhaps a better way might have been to simply give the 3.5 Assassin a face lift and present the PF Assassin as another school of the deadly arts or perhaps an alternate version.
But in reality that is all PF really did, because if you truly liked the 3.5 version better, it is easy enough to convert. The PF Assassin just presents an alternate version of the class, which needs no conversion as it is already incorporated into PF.
|
|
Nero has challenged me to respond to his first two points, I'll take that challenge. Keep in mind my merits are based on opinion, not fact, and the general feel of design rather than player expectations.
I'm not a big fan of the spell-less assassin. As it stands, it feels too much like a rogue now (in fact, take a look at the rogue varient in the Campaign Setting Book...). The spells were something that made me look at the class and think "If I take this instead of rogue, I'll get a character that's pretty different".
And just an FYI, I hate the "Just use the Red Mantis Assassins" argument for a few reasons...
1) The prestige class was there first, it's going to be in the core rules, and existing assassins already have spells. So shouldn't that assassin class get priority?
That assassin class did exist first, but I dislike the idea that the assassin is just some guy with a death attack and spells tacked on. There was no tactical feel to this assassin only just the fact that he kills stuff, and uses magic to get away. While this works for some people, I dislike it on the principle that it was sloppily designed. Why would you give them an ability, little to no support for it, then tack on spells to cover missing ground?
The current Assassin I feel, has much more of the assassin feel. He shouldn't NEED magic because he should be good enough already. These are the kind of guys that go into a room, kill five guys and if they get cut, their trainer beats the crap out of them for messing up. A caught assassin is a dead one, magic or no magic. Using magic to prolong your life is just a cheap trick that won't save you from the noose since you've been spotted.
Assassins should be more like batman, less like these magical rogues that 3.5 put them up to.
2) Setting specific classes don't work to fill a niche. Anyone wanting to play campaigns like Curse of the Crimson Throne? Well the magical assassin idea is right out, since...
** spoiler omitted **. Besides, not everyone wants a mantis theme with their magical assassins.
Fair enough, but you as the GM also have an obligation to say to your player "I'm sorry, but the red mantis assassins actually play an important role in Curse of the Crimson Throne, you can play an assassin in any of my other games, but this one, let the assassins be the dweller in the dark.
This is no different from telling a player NOT to play drow during Second Darkness.
3) It's a seperate book. If the option was included in the main rule book that would make things a little (if only a little) different.
Its a book designed for a campaign setting, sure the book might be a bit hard to come buy, but really it comes down to this;
As a GM I find, the more material I have, the better I can design NPC's that are flavorful. I like the idea of a magic-less assassin, just like I love the idea of a magic-less ranger.
The, "It's another book" doesn't really help the situation, when the spells an assassin got were often too little to late. It wasn't until a few completes came out that the assassin arsenal took a turn for the better, and even then I feel that a full rogue would fit the class better than what I was given.
Assassin in 3.5 was mainly Rogue with spells, rather than assassin. Hence why I said if you want to play an assassin with spells, go red mantis. That class was designed to meld the idea of an assassin with magic, as even their coup de grace was made into something more mystical than studying for three rounds.
The PF team also did two things with the way they handled it. Gave us two new Assassin classes and ensured they did not have to come up with new Assassin spells for every book they publish from now on that has any arcane spells.
It is a really simple thing to convert the 3.5 Assassin to PF and it comes already with more than enough spells for you to choose from.
I tend to agree that two special class abilities and a hand full of spells per day are hardly what I would expect from an Assassin pretiege class. Although unique at the time of its release, later Poison use (in fact better versions of poison use) could be had without taking this PrC, virtually everything else can be attained by taking the Rogue class. A few levels in a casting class would give you more than the Assassin was ever able to cast. Besides when you are talking about enemies at these levels with high saves and SR the only spells that were of much consistent use were the utility spells. So that really only leaves you with HiPS and Death Attack as class specific abilities to set the Assassin apart. There are better ways to get HiPS and Death Attack as it was in 3.5 was hardly worth taking the class for, besides there were other PrCs that gave Death Attack as well.
I think what they did with the PrC was a good choice. It put the focus of the PrC where I always believed it should be, as masters of stealth and deadly arts. Besides, no one says you can't bring the 3.5 Assassin into your game and there are more than enough source books that make it a decent option for an NPC or even a PC.
One of the things I like about the new skill system ,is that PrC's that mainly have a pre-req of a certain amount of skill points, are easy to enter by ANY class.
The Assassin class is just as easy for a fighter to enter as a rogue. Granted that a fighter will not be inherently as stealthy as a rogue because he does not have stealth as a class skill. Yet, skill focus in stealth is only one feat... and a fighter has plenty of those.
A 5th level fighter entering into the Assassin PrC would be allot closer to say... the main character from Assassins Creed as far as fighting ability goes.
It definitely sets the stage for a lot more variety. A character can become even more customizable and even more unique. I have always liked that about D&D and never been able to simulate it in any video game, not even the D&D based games.
That assassin class did exist first, but I dislike the idea that the assassin is just some guy with a death attack and spells tacked on.
But..that's just my point, the assassin already looks too much like a rogue, removing the spells only makes the comparison stronger. Use the varient class-feature from the Campaign Setting book and suddenly Death attack and the ability to prevent raise dead is the only thing the assassin has to his own.
Beforehand, it was death attack and a spell-list, so the amount of "improvements" paizo have added havn't made the class more unqiue.
There was no tactical feel to this assassin only just the fact that he kills stuff, and uses magic to get away. While this works for some people, I dislike it on the principle that it was sloppily designed. Why would you give them an ability, little to no support for it, then tack on spells to cover missing ground?
The tactical feel is exactly the same, the only difference is that richer victims need a little more gold to be brought back.
The current Assassin I feel, has much more of the assassin feel. He shouldn't NEED magic because he should be good enough already.
But he's using magic anyway? The new abilities are supernatural.
These are the kind of guys that go into a room, kill five guys and if they get cut, their trainer beats the crap out of them for messing up. A caught assassin is a dead one, magic or no magic. Using magic to prolong your life is just a cheap trick that won't save you from the noose since you've been spotted.
I'm not sure I follow, the new assassin isn't anything like that. They don't get any bonuses to AC or Damage Reduction, so how can they be the guys that go into a room and leave without a scratch any moreso than 3.5?
Death Attack is still the same (with the exception that, once per day, it may hamper ressurection and be used without observation...but like that would work in a room with 5 guys).
Fair enough, but you as the GM also have an obligation to say to your player "I'm sorry, but the red mantis assassins actually play an important role in Curse of the Crimson Throne, you can play an assassin in any of my other games, but this one, let the assassins be the dweller in the dark.
It's not simply that, if the DM wants these assassins to play a role in any campaign it instantly rules out the class. It's possible for a group of unothdox or tricked paladins to act as antagonists, but that won't rule out someone in the party being a paladin. Ditto for every other core class (prestige or no) and for quite a few non-core.
As a GM I find, the more material I have, the better I can design NPC's that are flavorful. I like the idea of a magic-less assassin, just like I love the idea of a magic-less ranger.
Not everyone feels the same. One thing I see becomming quite common is players using "Core Only" material. You'll see what I mean if you wander over a few of the "How do I convert classes XYZ" topics, the usual first responses will be "Just use X core class".
Sorry, but these really don't solve the problems. As I said, I can understand the need for a non-magical assassin, but "Just use X class" comes as a really poor excuse when we already had a class that filled that role.
It may just be me, but I felt the spells were pretty iconic for an assassin - If someone replaced the fighter's bonus feats with different features then made a class whose main class feature was bonus feats...well...you get what I'm saying right? Not everyone thinks the spells were that significant to the assassin so they problely wouldn't agree, but that's how it comes across to me.
|
|
But..that's just my point, the assassin already looks too much like a rogue, removing the spells only makes the comparison stronger. Use the varient class-feature from the Campaign Setting book and suddenly Death attack and the ability to prevent raise dead is the only thing the assassin has to his own.
Somehow I don't see a rogue killing someone and leaving the body behind, looking as it did in life. He gets support for that ability, and is able to use it for far more utility, than the base assassin from 3.5. The spells to me are a non-issue, but I see for you they are the selling point, a point I don't think was all that valid, but thats a difference of opinion.
Beforehand, it was death attack and a spell-list, so the amount of "improvements" paizo have added haven't made the class more unique.
Its death attack and support for death attack as opposed to drop death attack on the rogue, then give him spells and hope no one notices.
The tactical feel is exactly the same, the only difference is that richer victims need a little more gold to be brought back.
Actually its different. When you kill someone during the surprise round, you can hide immediately afterward and avoid detection. This allows you FAR more tactical flexibility. The ability to make it harder to resurrect is just icing on the cake, it means that an assassin's death attack actually MEANS something, rather than being a minor inconvenience.
But he's using magic anyway? The new abilities are supernatural.
Could just be the poison he uses for the death attacks. As he levels up, he develops far more potent poisons.
I'm not sure I follow, the new assassin isn't anything like that. They don't get any bonuses to AC or Damage Reduction, so how can they be the guys that go into a room and leave without a scratch any moreso than 3.5?
As I pointed out, attack and kill during surprise round, hide. Move to a new location, guards are on guard. Take them out slowly one by one, studying and killing each one separately, before you can finally leave. It takes awhile for sure, but you can do it. Its no different than how batman clears a warehouse full of thugs.
Death Attack is still the same (with the exception that, once per day, it may hamper resurrection and be used without observation...but like that would work in a room with 5 guys).
You also forgot the once a day use without study at 9. The ability to hide is actually more likely than not. Not everyone maxes out perception, and you don't have to do it while they're clustered. Take the warehouse for example. Kill the guy, go back into hiding. Wait for mook B to show up and check on mook A, and before he can cry out kill him. Hide the bodies and move on to your next spot, you're already 2/5th's of the way there.
It's not simply that, if the DM wants these assassins to play a role in any campaign it instantly rules out the class. It's possible for a group of unothdox or tricked paladins to act as antagonists, but that won't rule out someone in the party being a paladin. Ditto for every other core class (prestige or no) and for quite a few non-core.
There are very FEW times that the entire organization is hired out like that. You could just be assassins with differing marks, and in this case the mark ended up being your group. You could kill her, and have to explain it to your leaders. You might get reprimanded, but its certain they would eventually understand. It just might take a bit of good roleplaying on your part.
Like I said, its hard to get an entire organization behind you like what happened in Crimson Throne, that is the exception, rather than the standard. And if you keep making it the standard, perhaps you should house rule that assassins aren't allowed.
Not everyone feels the same. One thing I see becoming quite common is players using "Core Only" material. You'll see what I mean if you wander over a few of the "How do I convert classes XYZ" topics, the usual first responses will be "Just use X core class".
Sorry, but these really don't solve the problems. As I said, I can understand the need for a non-magical assassin, but "Just use X class" comes as a really poor excuse when we already had a class that filled that role.
It may just be me, but I felt the spells were pretty iconic for an assassin - If someone replaced the fighter's bonus feats with different features then made a class whose main class feature was bonus feats...well...you get what I'm saying right? Not everyone thinks the spells were that significant to the assassin so they probably wouldn't agree, but that's how it comes across to me.
1) I'm not suggesting a core class, quite the opposite. So most of this rant doesn't even apply to me.
2) While use of Core Classes to accomplish the goal is frustrating for you, its players showing different options available. If you didn't want core classes to be suggested, then you should come out and say so. Otherwise, people will say "Well a fighter taking these feats would be an excellent assassin!"
3)It felt to me that the Spells were tacked onto an otherwise piss poor class. The Assassin had one or two class features that could have easily gone to the rogue, (in fact the rogue capstone is actually death attack now) and the spells were the only thing that made it different. The problem was that their spells were too low a DC for their level. This left you with the assumption you'd have to buff your way through encounters. The biggest problem I had with that, was other than one or two buffs and a couple of flavorful spells, the assassin's list is far too spartan to be effective.
I'm looking at you remove spoor!