Has anyone tried the assassin class from the DDI? Flavor wise they seem very good to me but I was wondering if they actually did decent damage enough to live up to the classes title.
That depends.
I've never played one myself, but I did have a player who really enjoyed his, and all of the neat abilities that went with it.
If you're looking for raw damage, and will be counting every point and constantly cross-checking it against rogue and dual blade ranger potential... then I'm sad to say you're probably going to be disappointed.
Assassins aren't a incredibly well designed class, but they're not a terribly designed one, either. (Actually, the new essentials style one is pretty 'Meh,' to me.) If you're looking for raw damage output, it's tough to manage. If you're looking to have a lot of things to do AND have some pretty okay damage output, Assassins are what you're looking for.
One of the common foibles I see on charop boards is the "DPR Olympics approach." For strikers, it's a relevant thing to look at, but it's not the whole picture--one of the reasons I find the Beastmaster Ranger to be under-rated. It does slightly less damage on average, but has an astounding ability to lock down the battlefield for a Striker.
Maybe if optimized but not out of the box - at least that was the impression while we had a Hybrid Assassin at our table (spec meant to act as a sniper...but never really worked).
Emojones wrote: Has anyone tried the assassin class from the DDI? Flavor wise they seem very good to me but I was wondering if they actually did decent damage enough to live up to the classes title. I had a player play an assassin in my campaign. No one really liked the class. I think a rogue (thief or scoundrel) is a much better assassin than the assassin, and otherwise, the new blackguard is a really cool striker with a dark and evil-ish background.
Yeah... I've found "sniper" type builds are tough to pull off with rogues and assassins.
In melee, the assassin suffers a bit of damage loss under its striker mechanic, because of the way shrouds work. Even in best case scenario, it's not particularly great compared to many of the others, and if it were perhaps closer to a mix between the warlock's curse and the Avenger's Censure with a little bit of a damage boost coupled with some debuffage/utility would have been better...
But at the average table and for the average player, it's not a hugely noticeable difference.
EDIT: Also I second the assessment of the blackguard. I dislike the lack of a lot of choices, but the class does work pretty okay right out of the box. Fury Vice needs a little touch up to be just right, and Domination is just about perfect where it is.
The class has my eye mostley because I love the idea of making shadows come alive and do the fighting with me. It's a killer concept no pun intended but if I play a striker I want to be sure I can at least do enough damage so others at the table go "yup, thats a striker" and not "you said this is supposed to be a striker?....huh."
RedJack wrote: Yeah... I've found "sniper" type builds are tough to pull off with rogues and assassins. The thief class (essentials rogue) is an amazing sniper.
I've seen an assassin in play three times:
1) During a few session in mid-paragon tier, I took over DMing for a side arc, and the DM brought in a character to play - an assassin. He really enjoyed the flavor of it - a servant of the Raven Queen hunting down those who had lived beyond their alloted time - and was relatively effective. Not quite as high damage as other strikers in the party, but very hard to pin down and with a lot of tricks. The original DDI assassin is probably the most mobile melee striker in the game, even coming out ahead of the monk, rogue and ranger - it is hard to beat at-will teleport and many ways to vanish on the spot.
2) In a game I am currently in, which also started around mid-paragon (and is getting close to epic), one of the other players also has an assassin. This one is really focused on taking advantage of all the assassin's stealth tricks - it is possible for the character to spend the entire combat hidden or invisible on every enemy action. However, the player hasn't been entirely happy with the PC - while the damage can be about as effective as the other strikers, it takes a lot of micromanagement to set it up and pull it off successfully. And all the stealth stuff takes it own degree of careful plotting and planning, making it a bit of a headache to play - and when you don't invest that time, the assassin's shroud (their striker class feature) is very easy to end up being a complete waste.
3) I just started a new game, a Ravenloft campaign, and one player is trying out the Executioner - the Essentials assassin. And having an absolute blast with it. I think the Executioner is basically everything that an Essentials class should be - straightforward, but with a number of tricks, and many elements that underscore the flavor of the class. He lurks in shadows, pops out to garrote unsuspecting victims, and has a variety of poisons available for different situations. Damage is pretty reasonable, but the most important thing is that he is versatile, and can readily adapt to many different situations.
Conclusion: The assassin is a perfectly viable class. The original DDI version... it can work, but you really need to grok the design of the assassin's shroud in order to play it effectively. It requires a lot of planning ahead, sometimes by several turns - and that can be tricky given how much can happen in one or two rounds of combat. I think this makes for excellent thematics - it's basically a more active version of the old school assassin's "study for three rounds and death attack" shtick. But it can also be very tricky to play effectively.
The newer version, the Executioner, is much more straightforward. Still probably a bit more complex than a thief or slayer or the like. But perfectly respectable damage and a nice little bag of tricks available.
Malaclypse wrote: The thief class (essentials rogue) is an amazing sniper. Yeah, but I'm generally not on board with playing the Essentials martial classes, nor are the majority of my players.
I have a couple that wouldn't mind the simplicity and ability to (over)specialize, but I personally like the choice and flexibility from the 'older' design model.
Gaining tricks/stances etc. is all right, but the problem is you wind up grabbing the ones you like early on, and even when presented with choices to pick up different ones later, you're left selecting from the things you didn't want to begin with, rather than improvements or new choices. Some folks don't mind this, or even really like it, but I don't. ^_^
Emojones wrote: The class has my eye mostley because I love the idea of making shadows come alive and do the fighting with me. It's a killer concept no pun intended but if I play a striker I want to be sure I can at least do enough damage so others at the table go "yup, thats a striker" and not "you said this is supposed to be a striker?....huh." It sounds like you are aiming at the original assassin, which does get a good number of shadow powers. The damage... can be respectable, but as mentioned, requires a bit more work than some other classes.
What level are you playing at?
Well the assassin, if I make it, will be starting a new homebrew campaign a friend is designing based on Diablo II. So level 1.
I love the idea of using poisons too lol
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
...it is possible for the character to spend the entire combat hidden or invisible on every enemy action.
In our game we found this to actually be something of a detriment to party success. In the end for those things getting past the defenders its actually best if the damage gets spread out somewhat and the ability to be invulnerable to damage did little for the group as a wholes success...it just meant that the leader and controller got the snot kicked out of them even more. Not helpful was the general consensus.
RedJack wrote: I have a couple that wouldn't mind the simplicity and ability to (over)specialize, but I personally like the choice and flexibility from the 'older' design model.
Gaining tricks/stances etc. is all right, but the problem is you wind up grabbing the ones you like early on, and even when presented with choices to pick up different ones later, you're left selecting from the things you didn't want to begin with, rather than improvements or new choices. Some folks don't mind this, or even really like it, but I don't. ^_^
In my campaign it works nicely, because the player who plays the thief isn't really interested in mechanic details. He played a scoundrel (4e rogue) before and didn't really like it - now he's perfectly happy with his essentials char.
To derail the thread a bit, this is what I like about essentials: those players who like to carefully select an optimal power and feat choice are happy with 4E-style chars, and those don't really care enjoy their essentials chars.
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote: Matthew Koelbl wrote:
...it is possible for the character to spend the entire combat hidden or invisible on every enemy action.
In our game we found this to actually be something of a detriment to party success. In the end for those things getting past the defenders its actually best if the damage gets spread out somewhat and the ability to be invulnerable to damage did little for the group as a wholes success...it just meant that the leader and controller got the snot kicked out of them even more. Not helpful was the general consensus. We used to call this 'archer guilt' in 3rd Edition, since our group had two archery based fighters who generally had the most hp in the party, the highest AC, great Fort and Ref saves... and stood fifty feet from battle shooting the enemy while every else got hosed. >_>
It works out fine in our group - by that level, enemies have enough AoEs that the assassin still takes damage. We also have two defenders in the party, a rogue with similar vanishing tricks... and myself as a sentinel druid, who is probably the most fragile of the group, and I tend to be perfectly happy to take hits and keep the battle tension high.
But yeah, I can get the concern. It's one of those things definitely important to discuss with the group and make sure everyone is on the same page about.
Malaclypse wrote: To derail the thread a bit, this is what I like about essentials: those players who like to carefully select an optimal power and feat choice are happy with 4E-style chars, and those don't really care enjoy their essentials chars. I'm mostly on board with you here.
I'd have liked to have seen some magic-style classes that were closer to the simplicity of the E-Martial classes to help folks out with that. As it stands now, the Essentials design specs seem to lean towards the old "if you want a thinking man's class, play magic. the other stuff is training wheels--if it's not a full on caster, it's going to be simplistic." Aside from finding it a little offensive, I have players who'd like to play more magery-style characters, but have trouble or dislike the complexity of the AEDU system. Essentials classes don't help them at all, as the magey stuff is right in line with PHB1 style design.
I also have players who don't use the customization of the older designs to make optimal characters at all--they make characters that fit the concept they had before they picked up a book. When this concept lines up perfectly with an Essentials class, they usually pick one of those--I know I've played a Hexblade because it worked for what I wanted despite the fact that it's far from optimal. In fact, a couple recognize that due to some mathematical foibles, several Essentials classes are well above or below the standard "power curve," the Thief and Slayer being quite high while things like Binders and Hunters are well below. Still, even with the math-happy folks in the group, I haven't seen one played for more than a session or two as they quickly grow tired of the repetition.
This isn't to say I dislike everything about Essentials--I like that it works well for very casual players, and I like it when my players have fun with them.
I appreciate that they work very well for one of my players in particular, who otherwise would frustrate the living $#@% out of me. He literally does not understand (despite multiple explanations from the rest of the group) that "at-will=basic attack+something good, and is usable all the time," and "Encounter powers are clearly much better than your basic attack, and you can use them once per fight. Not using them does not grant you any advantage," and when you haven't used a daily power, the DM drops hints like crazy that this is the final, climactic battle, and you should probably do something nifty because the critter is about to eat half the party, the best answer is not "My wizard... uh... *shuffles papers* uh... *shuffles papers* Uh... *scratches head* uhm... shoots it with his crossbow?"
RedJack wrote: As it stands now, the Essentials design specs seem to lean towards the old "if you want a thinking man's class, play magic. the other stuff is training wheels--if it's not a full on caster, it's going to be simplistic." Aside from finding it a little offensive, I have players who'd like to play more magery-style characters, but have trouble or dislike the complexity of the AEDU system. Essentials classes don't help them at all, as the magey stuff is right in line with PHB1 style design. Yup, an essentials-style sorcerer is sorely missing.
RedJack wrote: This isn't to say I dislike everything about Essentials--I like that it works well for very casual players, and I like it when my players have fun with them. Well, it's not that it only works for casual players, but it also works for them.
One other advantage is it speeds up combat, especially for those players plagued by indecisiveness.
Emojones wrote: Has anyone tried the assassin class from the DDI? Flavor wise they seem very good to me but I was wondering if they actually did decent damage enough to live up to the classes title. While I haven't played the class myself, I have a friend who's played the DDI version and converted the class over to the Executioner (Essential Assassin). Having played both, he's described both accounts of the character to some detail (which I can't remember off-hand at the moment). From what he said, the DDI version was more magical in nature, using Shadow and Necrotic powers. Being able to blend into the darkness and attack people through their own shadows.
But he was more enthralled with the idea of a Poisoner and the Executioner build was more his style. It puts a less magical spin on the Assassin (or Essassin in reference to Essential Assassin). The striker mechanic on the Essassin is better for DPR and spike damage and can really pack a punch (albiet a 1/encounter punch).
The DDI assassin (or Ossassin) is more of a "Lurker" than a straight up Striker but the mechanics aren't that bad in casual play. I've seen what it can do and it is pretty good, compared to the un-optimized Warlock or Sorcerer but falls a bit in comparison to the Rogue or Ranger (and now Slayer). Will it get the job done? Sure will. Is it flavorful? Hells yes. Can it be optimized? Yes, to a degree. But is it right off the bat powerful or strong enough to stand next to the DPR kings? By far No. Take that for what you will.
Diffan wrote: From what he said, the DDI version was more magical in nature, using Shadow and Necrotic powers. Being able to blend into the darkness and attack people through their own shadows. One of my players plays one in my game and it seems interesting, agile but like mentioned comes off as more a shadowdancer rather than assassin. I'd like to play one some time but will probably refluff it to a shadowdancer.
They seem to have greater potential to cause serious damage but it happens after a couple of rounds(laying shrouds) so it probably deals less damage than a rogue.
ProsSteve wrote: Diffan wrote: From what he said, the DDI version was more magical in nature, using Shadow and Necrotic powers. Being able to blend into the darkness and attack people through their own shadows. One of my players plays one in my game and it seems interesting, agile but like mentioned comes off as more a shadowdancer rather than assassin. I'd like to play one some time but will probably refluff it to a shadowdancer.
They seem to have greater potential to cause serious damage but it happens after a couple of rounds(laying shrouds) so it probably deals less damage than a rogue. Yeah, I think the shroud effect was intended to be similar to classic assassin (spend a few rounds building up, and then exterminate one enemy), but doesn't quite come across that way. And they are definitely the type to bounce in and out of shadows.
They just received support in a new article that helps out quite a bit, actually. A feat to make shrouds deal more damage (equivalent to Backstabber/Lethal Hunter/etc), as well as one that let's them transfer shrouds when a target dies. That is a big deal - should make it much harder for them to end up wasting their striker feature.
I haven't played Assassin, but from what I remember and understand their Shroud effects are very flawed due to how long it takes to really build them up.
I have played Executioner though and it owns bones so hard.
The new support feats are indeed good. Unfortunately, they're support feats, instead of corrections to the original mechanic. :( In other words, to get the assassin class up to where it should be, you give up a few feats to do so, rather than having a properly functioning class from the beginning with a full selection of feats. Personally, I advocate houseruling them as free feats, since they should genuinely be in there anyhow.
In normal play, this isn't really a big deal, but it's more than a bit irksome for folks who are a bit more mindful of the numbers.
ProfessorCirno wrote: I haven't played Assassin, but from what I remember and understand their Shroud effects are very flawed due to how long it takes to really build them up.
I have played Executioner though and it owns bones so hard.
They're fine now. Tons of ways to stack multiple shrouds per turn, and enough feats to make their damage output both reliable and on par with other strikers.
RedJack wrote: The new support feats are indeed good. Unfortunately, they're support feats, instead of corrections to the original mechanic. :( In other words, to get the assassin class up to where it should be, you give up a few feats to do so, rather than having a properly functioning class from the beginning with a full selection of feats. Personally, I advocate houseruling them as free feats, since they should genuinely be in there anyhow.
In normal play, this isn't really a big deal, but it's more than a bit irksome for folks who are a bit more mindful of the numbers.
Well, the only real feat I think that would fall into that category is the one that moves Shrouds for you when the target dies. That was the only thing really missing in the first place, and which shouldn't be a feat tax. he others are all comparable to similar feats for other strikers, generally, none of which are required to make the class work.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: The original DDI assassin is probably the most mobile melee striker in the game, even coming out ahead of the monk, rogue and ranger - it is hard to beat at-will teleport and many ways to vanish on the spot. What about the Avenger?
Sebastrd wrote: Matthew Koelbl wrote: The original DDI assassin is probably the most mobile melee striker in the game, even coming out ahead of the monk, rogue and ranger - it is hard to beat at-will teleport and many ways to vanish on the spot. What about the Avenger? The avenger can definitely be up there, and is very good at having movement - or even teleports - built directly into powers, making it one of the most mobile while dazed/slowed/etc. Still, I think the shadow Assassin has the edge overall. Even if you don't build for it, they have a lot of mobility built in - and if you do, they can pretty much be wherever they want, every round of the combat.
Recent threads in 4th Edition
|
