Is the Avenger Prc also legit or just a joke?

[bendking]

Now, I know the Avenger is an April's Fools joke, but nothing about it says that it can't actually be used.
Would you allow the Avenger in your games? Should it be allowed? Is it considered legit?

[Curmudgeon]

It's a joke with poor execution. Look at the table, then look at the levels claimed for Sneak Attack progression: they don't match. I've never allowed anyone to use Avenger.

[AvatarVecna]

I would certainly allow my players to select it, if they wanted, but I'd never play it myself. Why? Because both the Shadowbane Inquisitor and the Shadowbane Stalker from Complete Adventurer do this idea better, because they're built to be holy assassin PrCs, rather than just changing the alignment restriction of the Assassin. Honestly, I don't know why the Assassin PrC should even have an alignment restriction, since it's possible to want to kill people for non-evil reasons, but whatever.

Anyway, yeah: I much prefer using the paladin/rogue or cleric/rogue holy assassin PrCs than using a class that's only a joke because they didn't write it correctly the first time.

[Venger]

Now, I know the Avenger is an April's Fools joke, but nothing about it says that it can't actually be used.
Would you allow the Avenger in your games? Should it be allowed? Is it considered legit?

I'd just let my players use assassin if they wanted to be good/neutral characters. in a game of killing people and taking their stuff, there's nothing wrong with being an assassin. it's literally just pasta (or was supposed to be, they screwed up the chart.)

[bendking]

Does the table and text not fitting automatically disqualify an entire Prc?

I want the SA progression of an Assassin, so the inquisitor deal won't work for me.
Might just try to ask my DM for let me play an Assassin as a good character (makes sense for my character, by the way).

The Avenger is un-official pasta? If so, that won't work.

[AvatarVecna]

Does the table and text not fitting automatically disqualify an entire Prc?

I want the SA progression of an Assassin, so the inquisitor deal won't work for me.
Might just try to ask my DM for let me play an Assassin as a good character (makes sense for my character, by the way).

The Avenger is un-official pasta? If so, that won't work.

It's certainly not a good thing, but it doesn't really disqualify it. I'd suggest just using Assassin and asking your DM to reel back the alignment restriction. And I can understand your feelings, it was just my personal opinion.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Does the table and text not fitting automatically disqualify an entire Prc?

I want the SA progression of an Assassin, so the inquisitor deal won't work for me.
Might just try to ask my DM for let me play an Assassin as a good character (makes sense for my character, by the way).

The Avenger is un-official pasta? If so, that won't work.

No, the Avenger is official.

Ordinarily the rule is that text trumps table. The table says SA increases at 1/3/5/7/9. The text says SA increases at 2/4/6/8/10. The text also says that


Avengers are a variant of the assassin prestige class from the DMG that does not require its members to be of evil alignment.

So, speaking for myself, I'd say the table is correct here. I'd also say that it's stupid that a Chaotic Good character doesn't qualify to be either an Assassin or an Avenger. And I would further say that it's stupid that either class has an alignment restriction.

[I3igAl]

I would say it is playable with a few small changes. The flavour text should be ignored. Magic Circle against Good should be replaced on his Spell List.

Aside of that I don't see anyting wrong a good Assasin. Why is getting rid of your enemy fast and clean more evil, than burning him alive by spamming fireballs or bludgeoning them with a Warhammer. Because it involves Sneak Attacking? This would make all rogues evil.

[atemu1234]

I'd allow it. I'd probably go Table over Text on this one's sneak attack, because that would put it in line with Rogue Sneak Attack.

[Venger]

Does the table and text not fitting automatically disqualify an entire Prc?

I want the SA progression of an Assassin, so the inquisitor deal won't work for me.
Might just try to ask my DM for let me play an Assassin as a good character (makes sense for my character, by the way).

The Avenger is un-official pasta? If so, that won't work.

no. text and table not matching up happens all the time. text is primary source, so text trumps table, meaning you get SA at odd levels, like an assassin.

honestly, just ignore the alignment junk and roll assassin. there's no logical reason they need to be evil.

avenger's official, it's made by wotc.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

no. text and table not matching up happens all the time. text is primary source, so text trumps table, meaning you get SA at odd levels, like an assassin.

honestly, just ignore the alignment junk and roll assassin. there's no logical reason they need to be evil.

avenger's official, it's made by wotc.

It's the other way around; the text says even levels and the table says odd.

[Venger]

It's the other way around; the text says even levels and the table says odd.

whoops. man, they just can't do anything right, can they?

[atemu1234]

whoops. man, they just can't do anything right, can they?

Nope. Not at all.

[Chronos]

Quoth AvatarVecna:

Honestly, I don't know why the Assassin PrC should even have an alignment restriction, since it's possible to want to kill people for non-evil reasons, but whatever.
Which is the whole point of the joke to begin with. If you want a character who kills things because the pay is good and doesn't care who his targets are, then you play an evil assassin. If you want a character who kills things because they're a threat to his community, then you play a lawful avenger. The assassin PrC is precedent that that sort of thing isn't too powerful, so it's OK to change the fluff.

[bendking]

Thanks for all the replies.
Most likely going to take the Assassin and refluff it for my character.

[Segev]

Man, the Avenger PrC must have a number of possible directions you can take it. Whether it's for the armor proficiencies in that exotic armor that is the whole of the class, the super-Kensai-like weapon that's bonded to you, or the massive boost you get when you use your Barbarian Rage, it's complex and hard to pick which way to develop it. Just don't go for the bard/rogue hybrid path or the archer path; they're sub-optimal.

[Inevitability]

Aside of that I don't see anyting wrong a good Assasin. Why is getting rid of your enemy fast and clean more evil, than burning him alive by spamming fireballs or bludgeoning them with a Warhammer. Because it involves Sneak Attacking? This would make all rogues evil.

Well, they can use poison a bit better than other classes, which obviously makes them EVILLLL.

[Venger]

Well, they can use poison a bit better than other classes, which obviously makes them EVILLLL.

just use positoxins, fam. then you're all Good. literally

[Tulya]

Alternately, just call yourself a Druid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm). Poisoning people with your magic and animal companion are perfectly okay.

Edit: In general, magical poison effects aren't classed as Evil, whether merely nauseating or lethal.

[Venger]

Alternately, just call yourself a Druid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm). Poisoning people with your magic and animal companion are perfectly okay.

Edit: In general, magical poison effects aren't classed as Evil, whether merely nauseating or lethal.

"using poison is evil" is a joke people make due to a line in the vanilla pally's code, equating poison use with being an evil act. this is agreed upon as being nonsense.

[Extra Anchovies]

"using poison is evil" is a joke people make due to a line in the vanilla pally's code, equating poison use with being an evil act. this is agreed upon as being nonsense.

Not quite.

Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent.

[Venger]

Not quite.

I meant by players, not by wotc, they don't know what they're talking about.

besides, poison use is fine as long as you call them "positoxins."

[Segev]

I do not know this for sure, but I suspect poisons are "evil" in D&D because the old, old, old versions of the game had an expectation of "honorable combat" being something all non-evil individuals engaged in, and poison being "not honorable." It stuck around. It may also have been something declared "evil" to prevent the non-evil party from using some particularly nasty ones that Gary had his bad guys using against them.

In short, it's an outdated legacy rule that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but for some reason HAS survived as a legacy rule.

[Venger]

I do not know this for sure, but I suspect poisons are "evil" in D&D because the old, old, old versions of the game had an expectation of "honorable combat" being something all non-evil individuals engaged in, and poison being "not honorable." It stuck around. It may also have been something declared "evil" to prevent the non-evil party from using some particularly nasty ones that Gary had his bad guys using against them.

In short, it's an outdated legacy rule that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but for some reason HAS survived as a legacy rule.

Yes, that is correct.

back in 1e, the law/chaos axis wasn't exactly a thing, so good was explicitly lawful, and evil was chaotic (even moreso than the alignment system of 3.x, where LG is the "best" good and CE is the "worst" evil) so codes of conduct and honorable combat and rules of engagement and all that crap was under the banner of law and thus Good and its inverse was Evil.

but, whether it makes sense or not (I think we can all agree it doesn't) my point was more that even within the confines of strict mechanics, this isn't consistently enforced, since other spls that deal ability damage are not Evil, and even ones that give you poison that lets you deal ability damage like toxic tongue or poison are not Evil, so even if that was a tactic a pro-boed person might try to take as to why the rules make sense, it too would fall flat. and that you can continue to use poison as long as you call it by a different name.

[icefractal]

I'd just remove the alignment restriction from the Assassin; it doesn't make sense anyway. Dragon slayers and vampire hunters are both assassins of a sort, and nobody claim they'd be evil. The Assassin's abilities don't seem so unique as to be tied to a specific evil organization either.

But OTOH, it's not like the Avenger gets anything ridiculous, so I guess I'd allow it if someone really wanted to play one.

[Psyren]

Yes, that is correct.

back in 1e, the law/chaos axis wasn't exactly a thing, so good was explicitly lawful, and evil was chaotic (even moreso than the alignment system of 3.x, where LG is the "best" good and CE is the "worst" evil) so codes of conduct and honorable combat and rules of engagement and all that crap was under the banner of law and thus Good and its inverse was Evil.

Wasn't it 4e that flattened alignment to one track and perpetrated the "LG = Best Good" and "CE = Worst Evil" sentiment? There may have been shades of it in 3e but they also actively and openly opposed the notion; BoED includes phrases like "Lawful good characters by no means have a monopoly on goodness" and "[Exalted] neutral good and chaotic good characters are no less virtuous [than a paladin]."

[dysprosium]

BECMI had three alignments: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. It was assumed that Lawful was also Good and that Chaotic was also Evil.

1st edition had the nine alignments that we know of today as did 2nd and 3rd.

That aberration 4E had five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil.