Should Assassin be theme or class?

[Abstruse]

I'd be good to go with something like this:
{cut long table}

Why did you pick the ones you picked for classes and the others for themes? What criteria did you use? Why is Warlock on the class list but Sorcerer is on the theme list?

 

[steeldragons]

Short answer, other than the warlock,...tradition, basically. I know it's become something of a dirty word in these sorts of discussions, but that really is the reason.

I did 2 subclasses to each of the "non-caster" base classes and only the 1 each for the casters...simply because I like the base flavor of leaning the game toward "magic is more rare".

Flip-flopping Warlock in for Sorcerer was a personal judgement call. I have NO love for the warlock class, but I know lots of people seem to...and they seem distinct enough mechanically (or rather I would like them to be) from mages/wizards to have themselves a class...much moreso flavor and crunch-wise, to me, than a sorcerer. "I gots magic in my blood" just is not all that evocative of a reason for being...again, to me.

As for the other themes, I was just going through things I know weren't in 1st PHBs. Barbarian, Cavalier and [Thief-]Acrobat were in 1e's Unearthed Arcana...but don't think that cuts it. Illusionist (even having been in 1e's PHB) we've already been told will be a Theme (other specialist mages are obviously included).

The others are just classes I know/have seen around...seem to be popular with some people...and/or I might be flavorful with the base classes I chose.

*shrug* That's all.
--SD

 

[Serendipity]

See my above post of what I think should and shouldn't be a class to answer your last question.

You mean the question I wasn't asking?

In any case, the present set up re: background and theme suggests that classes are customizable to at least a limited degree. Fine. But, and I am not the first person to point this out, if assassin (or bard, or paladin, or whatever) is reduced to a theme to whatever actual class, then for any given character of that type it requires both sacrificing a customizable slot and also leads to a bunch of that character type being mechanically identical. IOW, you lose customizability because you've opted to play something that isn't a base class. I think that stinks.

It seems to me that a lot of folk advocating that class x should be a theme at heart are motivated to say so because they don't like that class. That's not a valid reason for a design decision, and trying to dress it up as something otherwise is, at least, disingenuous.

Which is not to say that some objection isn't valid - I want a separate assassin class but I'll acknowledge that the generic and bland rogue covers the same abilities and so some mechanical differentiation would be necessary. I make the same case with the cleric. (I was really sold on the notion of separate priest and cleric classes, with the value of cleric largely equaling paladin, as they originate from the same sources.) The real question is how to make such a mechanical distinction and make it work.

 

[jadrax]

Is there anything about the statement "A class should be unique enough from other classes that there is a reason for it to exist separately" that you're not understanding? The statement seems pretty clear. How should I re-word it so you can understand the meaning?

Unique is an absolute condition. I.e. something is either unique or it is not. You cannot have degrees of uniqueness. 'unique enough' isn't actually a valid phrase. Do you mean 'different enough' or do you mean 'unique'?

As far as being subjective, your argument is invalid. One of the clear goals of the playtest as stated by the designers is "Does this playtest feel like D&D?" That's as subjective as you can get.

If your taking what the designers say as some sort of unquestionable truth, they have pretty much already said Assassin is a class. Personally, I do not take what the designers say as unquestionable truth, as most of them have talked utter rot at some point in their lives, as have we all.

If my requirements for what should and should not be a class as opposed to a theme or build, what do you think those requirements should be?

This actually fails to makes sense as well. You seem to be missing a segment of text.

If all you're going to do is tell me that my arguments are wrong without providing anything else, you're not adding anything to the discussion. If you're not adding anything to the discussion, why are you here?

I like to educate people, it's my only vice.

 

[Abstruse]

Short answer, other than the warlock,...tradition, basically. I know it's become something of a dirty word in these sorts of discussions, but that really is the reason.

That's pretty much my argument. If we're doing a new edition, we need to examine every aspect and not give something a pass just because it's legacy. Whether WotC is going to do that or not isn't the question - they're going to include paladins and rangers because fans are going to throw rabid mouth-foaming tantrums if they don't. However, we should force them to examine and approach classes in an intelligent and well-thought manner. And as much as my OCD side likes the organization of your strategy, there's a good chance it'll just force a 4e-style bloat of classes like when they tried to stick every power source and role together to spit out a class, giving us such oddities as the runepriest and...what was the psionic leader again? I can't remember...

In any case, the present set up re: background and theme suggests that classes are customizable to at least a limited degree. Fine. But, and I am not the first person to point this out, if assassin (or bard, or paladin, or whatever) is reduced to a theme to whatever actual class, then for any given character of that type it requires both sacrificing a customizable slot and also leads to a bunch of that character type being mechanically identical. IOW, you lose customizability because you've opted to play something that isn't a base class. I think that stinks.

It seems to me that a lot of folk advocating that class x should be a theme at heart are motivated to say so because they don't like that class. That's not a valid reason for a design decision, and trying to dress it up as something otherwise is, at least, disingenuous.

Which is not to say that some objection isn't valid - I want a separate assassin class but I'll acknowledge that the generic and bland rogue covers the same abilities and so some mechanical differentiation would be necessary. I make the same case with the cleric. (I was really sold on the notion of separate priest and cleric classes, with the value of cleric largely equaling paladin, as they originate from the same sources.) The real question is how to make such a mechanical distinction and make it work.

I like the assassin class. I think it should be a theme. Very first thing I said in this thread.

And the reason I state versatility as one of my requirements for what should be a class is because not every class has the room to accommodate an array of build types. If you can only make one or two different kinds of rangers (calm down, just using this as an example), then why does it matter if your class and theme choices are sucked up making the a ranger character? If, however, there are many variations of builds you can make for the same archetype by applying different themes to it, then there's more than enough room to make it a class.

To stick with the ranger, if ranger is a theme, you can make a ranged stealthy hunter by applying it to the rogue class or a tough two-weapon survivalist by applying it to the fighter class. If that's all there is to being a ranger, then why should you get a free theme when other older classes (like the avenger) do not? If, however, ranger is a class and you can apply multiple themes to it to get a character that feels and plays differently from other classes while at the same time still fitting the thematic feel of the ranger, then it should be a class.

"I like rangers but I also want to min/max" isn't a good enough reason for making it a class. Same with paladins, assassins, avengers, blah blah blah.

 

[Abstruse]

I like to educate people, it's my only vice.

No, it's trolling. Saying "Nope, you're wrong" adds nothing to the discussion and exists solely to piss people off. It's not educating. Speaking of...

If your taking what the designers say as some sort of unquestionable truth...

*you're.

See, all I did was call you wrong but didn't actually address the questions your raised. Annoying, isn't it?

 

[KidSnide]

Assassin is a class for mostly the same reason that ranger and paladin are classes.

According to the designers, a class is what you do and a theme is how you do it. An assassin class may be similar to a rogue class (and may share some mechanics), but it is more focused on stealth, infiltration, poison, sudden-attack combat (and maybe weird shadow magic). You could probably build a rogue that came super-close to that by choosing the right background, the perfect theme (and maybe a splash of a wizard/illusionist multiclass), but it would take all your customization resources to do that.

I don't want to see all assassins work the same. I'd like to see some assassins specialize in poison, some that specialize as working as a sniper, some that cut (or garrot?) throats and - yes - maybe some that specialize in weird shadow magic. Each of those are themes (ok, maybe not the weird shadow magic), and an assassin should have the flexibility to customize with those.

And if you want a rogue (or fighter, or illusionist) who is a "professional" assassin (as opposed to an assassin classed character), there is no reason you can't build that character. It's no different that a rogue who is an ordained (but non-cleric) priest of the goddess of shadows or a druid who happens to be a sage. In fact, the backgrounds and themes that will be designed primarily to support the assassin class (in whatever splat book it comes out in), will be very useful to create those characters. There's nothing wrong with a rogue or bard who wants to pick up the poisoner theme.

-KS

 

[jadrax]

Annoying, isn't it?

Not really?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think they mentioned it will be a class, but in that case they'd better make it unique.

I too like the idea of "assassin" as a theme, because it can then be applied to any class.

 

[Remathilis]

It should be a Class.
It will be a Class.
It will apparently generate threads unique threads about these facts in the same way as every core class that is not Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or Wizard.

Why stop there? A rogue is nothing more than a fighter in light armor with a "thief" backgound/skillset, and a cleric is nothing more than a wizard with a priest background and more healy magic.

In the end, you can boil every class down to "caster" or "non-caster" so I fail to see any value in debating whether barbarians, rangers, assassins, druids, monks, warlocks, warlords, paladins, or bards are class-worthy or not. I'd rather see them all as classes.