I've often wondered this myself... what happens if the assassin never uses the death attack to kill, but only to paralyze?
I would treat it like any other ex-class.
I would treat it like any other ex-class.
This doesn't really define anything.
A paladin looses all his paladin abilities.
A monk simply cannot gain new monk levels but retains all the abilities.
A lawful barbarian can't rage and can't gain more levels, but retains all barbarian abilities not related to raging.
|
Like any other ex-class.. that in itself is vague.
Ex-monks maintain all monk abilities but can gain no more levels in monk, no atonement possibility is mentioned.
Ex-paladins lose all spells and class features and can no longer progress in paladin, unless and until she atones (atonement spell).
Ex-druids lose all spells and druid abilities and cannot gain levels as a druid unless and until she atones (atonement spell).
Ex-clerics lose all spells and class features, except armor/shield proficiency, cannot gain levels as cleric of that god (but can of other gods normal limits apply), until she atones (atonement spell).
So.. four examples.. and they aren't the same at all.
I would *guess* that our of those four examples, the ex-assassin is more similar to the ex-monk.. and really that no atonement would be required. After all unlike the Paladin, Cleric or Druid, there's no deific super-powers involved here. Its just training and outlook. So furthermore, just shifting back to an evil alignment (atonement spell can help with that, but there are other ways) would be sufficient to be back in in business as it were. But hey.. what do I know. I'm just guessing there. I was hoping that there is an actual ruling that I was somehow not finding.
|
|
Depends, is the assassin still going to kill monsters and enemies the DM gives the players? Then no real difference. The assassin is now a sniper or other type of asymmetrical warrior. If a sniper can be "good", then so can an assassin. It all comes down to the motivation.
No more assassin levels though.
Some abilities would be off limits. For instance: the assassin may limit himself to poisons that paralyze or sleep the victims, or poisons that don't cause great pain and suffering.
The effects, I think, would be the enemies: the guild that trained the assassin is angry that he or she is trying to quit, and sends assassins after the group. This could tie into a story arc where the only way to stop all the assassins coming after the party is to confront and destroy the former guild.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, while not explicitly stated, I think the Assassin's Death abilities would not be usable due to alignment issues rather than mechanical ones.
Former Assassin: "I was an assassin once but then I saw the light. I refuse to use those abilities lest I go down the dark path again."
In short, if he wants to stay non-evil he shouldn't be using the special abilities that involve assassination (Death Attack and abilities using Death Attack). The rest are not something that are unique to the Assassin PrC so I would allow him to use those without sliding back into evil.
- Gauss
I am rather surprised that they didn't include some kind of rules coverage. In their absence I'd use the least-restrictive of the existing examples as precedent; the assassin retains all abilities but must advance in non-assassin classes unless/until he regains an evil alignment and 'atones'.
(My house-rules would probably be different, but this is my best guess at rules-as-intended in the absence of rules-as-written.)
This would be my assumption as well (although in house rules I drop the alignment requirement for the class; there are examples of non-evil assassins in the fantasy genre).
As as a PrC once the requirements of the class aren't met don't they lose access to all class abilities? IIRC they retain BAB, saves, skills, armor/weapon proficiencies but anything gained from the class is 'unavailable' until the requirements are met again. Similar to losing a prereq for a feat could cost access to the feat (and a feat tree that built off that feat).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with 'nothing', if for no other reason than I find the requirements for the PrC to be unfathomably stupid.
I'd go with 'nothing', if for no other reason than I find the requirements for the PrC to be unfathomably stupid.
I have to agree, to an extent. Really, the class seems to suffer from a big fluff/crunch disconnect, since the only part of the class that seems at all evil by it's current rules is the PrC entry requirements. In terms of class abilities, it's really just a rogue with fewer skills and more emphasis on sneak attacking. There's really nothing in the class that screams that it must be evil, aside from the fact that the assassin is sneaky and kills people. But there are several other classes that can do that without alignment issues.
I also think part of the issue is that neutral/good aligned assassins are a reasonably popular thing in gamer circles now, thanks to games like Assassin's Creed, Dishonored, etc. Non-evil assassins are getting to be a semi-popular character type, which makes the "must be evil" restriction seem arbitrary and a bit dated.
This would be my assumption as well (although in house rules I drop the alignment requirement for the class; there are examples of non-evil assassins in the fantasy genre).
Vlad Taltos the later years. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with 'nothing', if for no other reason than I find the requirements for the PrC to be unfathomably stupid.I have to agree, to an extent. Really, the class seems to suffer from a big fluff/crunch disconnect, since the only part of the class that seems at all evil by it's current rules is the PrC entry requirements. In terms of class abilities, it's really just a rogue with fewer skills and more emphasis on sneak attacking. There's really nothing in the class that screams that it must be evil, aside from the fact that the assassin is sneaky and kills people. But there are several other classes that can do that without alignment issues.
I also think part of the issue is that neutral/good aligned assassins are a reasonably popular thing in gamer circles now, thanks to games like Assassin's Creed, Dishonored, etc. Non-evil assassins are getting to be a semi-popular character type, which makes the "must be evil" restriction seem arbitrary and a bit dated.
It seems arbitrary and dated because that's exactly what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say no new levels, but he ratains all abilities. Paladins annd clerics channel their gods power, and the god is angry that you left his path, so he doesn't give you power anymore. The barbarian lets himself go and if he gets lawful, his mind has become too ordered for that (which is stupid I admit). Bt an assassin is just someone with a training in murder, why would that training go away? And if used against monsters, why would that be a problem for a neutral assassin?
It should be the other way around: If you continues to assassinate people of humanoid races, his alignment might shift back to evil. But anyway he should still know how to do it.
My understanding is that the evil requirement is implied to mean that assassins will only train someone with their amoral worldview, hence the necessary killing of an innocent. You prove to your trainers thatt you have no qualms. Devellop qualms, and they will not train you further (and probably try to kill you).
Well, I'm not sure I like (or dislike) the alignment requirement, but that is irrelevant. From a rules standpoint, you don't really qualify for the prestige class anymore. I know it is not the same thing, but Ultimate Campaign, in the Retraining section, mentions changing a character and no longer qualifying for a prestige class. It says that you can no longer use levels of that class.
maybe it just me but i think its more important for an assassin to be lawful then evil.
assassin starts being good then he does not take any more jobs he is still assassin he can assassinate people might do it on his own terms or just kill of bad people for betterment of the world
assassin starts being less lawful he just pissed someone off who has no problem paying people to kill for him.
my 2cp
The assassin's abilities are a result of training, rather than a gift from somewhere else(even internal anger)...
So I would rule he keeps his class abilities, but can no longer gain levels.
My understanding is that the evil requirement is implied to mean that assassins will only train someone with their amoral worldview, hence the necessary killing of an innocent. You prove to your trainers thatt you have no qualms. Devellop qualms, and they will not train you further (and probably try to kill you).
Nothing in the class writeup indicates all assassins must be part of some large guild which offers formal training and membership. That's certainly a valid way to run the class, but just one of many options.
Ninjas get very similar abilities without any prerequisites.
well right all the PRC kinda suck horribly but thats beside the point
well right all the PRC kinda suck horribly but thats beside the point
I disagree. I'd say the the the core PrCs are sub-par, but a lot of the later ones are really cool.
I also think part of the issue is that neutral/good aligned assassins are a reasonably popular thing in gamer circles now, thanks to games like Assassin's Creed, Dishonored, etc. Non-evil assassins are getting to be a semi-popular character type, which makes the "must be evil" restriction seem arbitrary and a bit dated.
Actually, that is not a new issue.
I also think part of the issue is that neutral/good aligned assassins are a reasonably popular thing in gamer circles now, thanks to games like Assassin's Creed, Dishonored, etc. Non-evil assassins are getting to be a semi-popular character type, which makes the "must be evil" restriction seem arbitrary and a bit dated.Actually, that is not a new issue.
rules don't apply to time lords
At one point, on the 3.5 site, WotC created a PrC called 'The Avenger'. It was identical to the Assassin, except with the alignment and 'kill someone' requirements removed.
I don't think anybody got it.
Well, since they do not get their ability to kill people from some divine power, but rather from skills and training, I would say they would be like monks. I wouldn't begrudge them the use of their current abilities (although I would encourage paralysis rather than death attacks), since again, they are trained rather than granted.
Also realize: all the other classes kill things too, and no one said the assassin became LG or anything, just some form of neutral at least. I would prevent him from further perfecting the art of assassination, since he is not as obsessed with finding the best way to get away with it, since such ideology is why he was 'evil' in the first place.
So we have a metric ton of opinions on the subject, but RAW (ultimate campaign) is you lose access to those class levels?
Just reiterating to the point as the OP probably came to the Rules Forum to see what actually happens in regards to the mechanics of the game.
where in UCp does it say that?
where in UCp does it say that?
Under the Retraining section, under Ability score. There is a line that mentions that if you no longer qualify for something, you can no longer use it.
that seems a little light in the face of
RAI could lead you to believe that you don't have to maintain the requirements for a PRC
also please link when referencing
Well, I was more referring to this line.
Bolding my specific reference. With that line taken into account, I think RAI starts sounding like you have to maintain prereqs.
Well, I was more referring to this line.
Bolding my specific reference. With that line taken into account, I think RAI starts sounding like you have to maintain prereqs.
see how better referencing help:)
right and that's how i would rule it as well (minus i don't have aliments in my game so a paladin could be a assassin if the story is good enough)
at this point i just the devil's board advocate
Ex-Assassins have to move to a major city to fight crime under an alias involving some sort of flying rodent.
Maybe that works in a world run and created by a certain comic book company, but it doesn't fly in Pathfinder.
An assassin becomes non-evil? They have to let their beards grow a bit for a decent stubble, start drinking too much, pine for the woman who just divorced them, and sit in night clubs for far too long, listening to jazz. Uh-huh. Says so in the rules.
Well, I was more referring to this line.
Bolding my specific reference. With that line taken into account, I think RAI starts sounding like you have to maintain prereqs.
But that is retraining, not an alignment change. I feel that is a different precedent. A paladin can't retrain out of being LG, or retrain back to it.
And how was this handled before Paizo even mentioned anything about retraining outside of fighters?
|
i'd say you can use all your assassin abilities, but as you no longer meet the requirements for the prestige class, you couldn't continue to take levels. ::shrug::
it is a silly requirement, there's been neutral assassin tropes in writing and gaming for a while now. the assassin doesn't even get spells as they did in 3.5, and most of its abilities are equivalent to a few levels of rogue or ninja, except for the paralyzing/killing blow. a monk/ninja could roleplay being an assassin with high enough stunning fist for paralysis.
And generally, the Ninja does the Assassin's job better.
I agree that RAW don't seem to address this directly. I think a local GM is on his own. Since PFS play does not allow evil characters, this has no PFS implications.
|
At one point, on the 3.5 site, WotC created a PrC called 'The Avenger'. It was identical to the Assassin, except with the alignment and 'kill someone' requirements removed.
I don't think anybody got it.
I got it!
Anyway, it's still there, and they even color-swapped the DMG assassin to white.
It just shows how ridiculous many of those PrC requirements were.
I would rule "nothing, but no advancement" in most cases. For the Assassin in particular I would remove the Evil requirement.
Ninjas get very similar abilities without any prerequisites.
Also the master spy prestige class.
However the first section on prestige classes spells this out.
Prestige classes allow characters to become truly exceptional, gaining powers beyond the ken of their peers. Unlike the core classes, characters must meet specific requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before gaining any benefits of that level, that character cannot take that prestige class. Characters that take levels in prestige classes do not gain any favored class bonuses for those levels.
That's about all I see that limits the non-evil assassin.
OK, at a glance, I don't think an assassin loses anything if he becomes neutral or good.
There is fluff text saying "the assassin class attracts those with evil alignments more than any others." That even implies that it is not necessary to be evil.
But then there is the Prerequisite that says:
"To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
Alignment: Any evil."
OK, that's pretty specific, but it says "to become an assassin". Nothing about remaining an assassin. In fact, nowhere in the class description do I see anything that says an assassin must remain evil or an assassin loses any ability if he fails to remain evil. Unless I missed it.
Now, clearly, if he continues killing people for money (or pleasure, or greed, etc.) then he is still behaving in an evil fashion and will remain evil. But if he begins behaving in a non-evil fashion (no more murdering) he should be able to change alignments and he could still use his assassin abilities like any other adventurer - it's not evil to kill nasty monsters in a dungeon, regardless of whether you use a sword, a Death Spell, or a Death Attack.
I just think it's lame that you can become evil, become an assassin, and go away from being evil. What kind of precedent does this set for classes like the Diabolist? I think you need to maintain the prerequisites for a PrC. Now, I'm not saying I agree with the Prerequisites for Assassin, just that you should maintain them as a general rule.
I just think it's lame that you can become evil, become an assassin, and go away from being evil. What kind of precedent does this set for classes like the Diabolist? I think you need to maintain the prerequisites for a PrC. Now, I'm not saying I agree with the Prerequisites for Assassin, just that you should maintain them as a general rule.
I can become a student, become an engineer, then later in life I stop being both a student and and engineer and become a fry cook at McDonald's if I want to.
For an assassin, as defined by RAW, he must be evil and he must kill someone for purely evil reasons to begin the PrC. Maybe that could be houseruled away if a GM wants to create a society of LN assassins who only kill "bad people" and never kill simply for money. But the generic assassin is an evil jerk who kills innocent (sometimes) people for no other reason than a paycheck. Evil, through and through. And the PrC is geared toward that assassin so it's written that way.
Now, later, one of those evil jerk assassins has an epiphany, he finds a new religion, or whatever, and decides killing for money is a bad thing. In fact, he changes his whole attitude and actually becomes a good guy (or at least not an evil guy). Now he gets an alignment shift but he doesn't forget how to kill. His powers are not granted by a god (like a cleric or paladin or druid) and he's not empowered by his way of life (like a monk or barbarian) so he has nothing to lose and nothing to forget.
He can still do everything he used to, including killing living things, he can still use all his assassin abilities, but because of his new outlook on life he is no longer willing to use those skills for money and no longer willing to use those skills against innocent people.
No reason for it to work any differently than that, and by RAW, it does not appear to.
Waylander.....
I agree with DM_Blake while evil is a prerequisite, RAW says nothing about afterwards. It seems logical to limit a "lapsed" assassin from gaining new PrC abilities but it does seem to be a fantasy trope to have the killer reform himself. I say if the story arc and role-playing is there let the Assassin redeem away!!
Well, I was more referring to this line.
Bolding my specific reference. With that line taken into account, I think RAI starts sounding like you have to maintain prereqs.
But that is retraining, not an alignment change. I feel that is a different precedent. A paladin can't retrain out of being LG, or retrain back to it.
And how was this handled before Paizo even mentioned anything about retraining outside of fighters?
Isn't changing alignment for intents and purposes 'retraining' alignment?
Prior to now changes to the character were as per GM say so. Now they have a "system" for making numerous changes to characters, and it apparently says if you don't meet requirements you lose access to things.