When Fluff Met Crunch

[Amphimir Míriel]

*Sigh*

I remember why the druid is able to use the scimitar. You won't like it.
/Marvin

The druid's weapons are either tools of the hunt or of agriculture. The scimitar is a weapon of war that developed from grain threshing, and, as such, is dear to the heart of the druid.

Yes. Yes it is. Explain to me why they don't have the scythe or flail now...

That's why druids in my campaign have access to machetes and scythes instead of scimitars... By suggestion of the players, who found the above explanation silly.

The evil requirement is more because of the killing an innocent thing.

Fighters also train to kill.

About the Assassin thing, my two cents:

In one of my favorite books (A Clash of Kings by GRR Martin, if you must know) one of the main characters finds out that her sister (the Queen) ordered the assassination of all of the illegitimate children of the late king. One of the kids was just a babe in arms, and the the mother (a prostitute) tried to fight the assassin and ended up dead too.

The guy is horrified and asks his most ruthless bodyguard: "Bronn, if I asked you to kill a babe in arms, would you do it? without question?" and he answers: "Without question?... No. I would ask how much"

This I believe is a good example of the difference between the mindset of the regular fighter and that of the Assassin... I think even a Chaotic Neutral character would balk at the thought of killing an innocent in cold blood.

[Matthew]

I don't know, I think Monks are open to many interpretations and Character Concepts, but they probably don't support as many as well as a Fighter (the Generic King).

On the other hand, I don't see why a Boxer would be proficient in all types of Body Armour, Shields and Simple and Marshal Weapons.

This is getting confusing. Are we saying that the restrictions on Paladins and Monks are not mechanical at all?

[Shazzbaa]

Really? What was the webcomic?

The villain was Mynd, from Bob and George. The only reason it worked out is because all the main characters are robots and could be rebuilt after Mynd pretty much slaughtered them all without remorse.

It's been a while since I read the B&G archives, though, so I don't remember the details.

I like how you differentiate between inner and outter fluff, it actually makes a lot of sense that way. The issue I would have with the above quote is the next part of your post I'm quoting... [...]....The Assassin by virtue of his own belief/morals/decisions has to be evil because in order to kill someone for no other reason than it is your job makes you evil.

Thanks. I included both sides of the Assassin 'cause I think both people have a point (even though I know I'd rule it the first way), and if any DM of mine proposed it either way I'd nod and go "Okay, that makes sense." At that point it's basically a DM's call on the attitude he sees the Assassin as having. Neither wrong, neither right.

I look around, and notice that [INSERT CLASS HERE] has everything I need mechanically. I just need to get rid of the rp restrictions... [...] ...Other than that, I want to get exactly the same abilities as a regular [INSERT CLASS HERE].

Do you think that would be fair?

Slightly edited.
I think this depends, and thus it would be different for different classes. Take the fighter. The fighter may be typically a soldier, as written in the fluff (this is simplified, just flow with it). His "powers," as it were, come from his training.
Now, if you want to play a fighter who isn't a soldier, you have to explain where your powers are coming from, if not a soldier's training.

See where I'm going?

Take the monk. The monk gets his power from his discipline, meditation, and monastical life. His constant dedication to keeping his body pure and strong. You don't get monk powers for free -- so in my book, you can't just say, "Well, I'm good at punching stuff" and use that as your monk fluff. Sure, you may throw out the outer fluff in some circumstances; you may have not grown up in a monastary, but trained under a single wandering master who taught you to flow with change, to value your freedom of spirit as your power -- and then perhaps you have a chaotic monk. But the core, inner fluff of a discipline and dedication to enhancing one's own body still remain. I think taking the mystic aspect out of monks isn't fair -- "Well, most people have to train and discipline their bodies to achieve this power... but I get it 'cause... I wanted to specialise in punching things."

The problem I have with just discarding ALL the fluff is that then your character -- forget the player -- is getting things for free. Sure, most wizards have to study and work hard to accomplish spellcasting, but I want to be a wizard who didn't have to. Yes, most paladins make themselves the tools of their gods, and most have to follow a strict code and sacrifice their own decisions and convenience for carrying out their deities' wishes in an honorable manner in order to remain empowered by these gods... but I want nifty god-powers ANYWAY, without having to do all that. I want to do as much damage as a friggin' martial weapon with my fist, but I don't want to do any of that silly discipline stuff.

Sure, so does everyone. Heck, I'd like nifty god-powers. But I don't get them just by being so angry that I want them really, really bad, any more than I'll suddenly get strength, martial tactics, weapon proficiencies from really wanting to be able to fight. I have to work for it. I have to do something to get these powers.

Which is why I'm a fan of preserving the inner fluff, but allowing the outer fluff to change. If someone can preserve the thing that makes a class what it is, but wants to change some gameworld aspect of it, I don't see a problem. I do see a problem when someone wants to get rid of the source of a class's power, and still have that power (Clerics are the only exceptions we've been given, because apparently deities are cool with granting powers to deity-less clerics. *shrug* Go figure).

Now, to go specific -- to the boxer character, I would say, "That's not possible." Why is your fist doing more damage than a manufactured weapon? The monk isn't just "really good at punching stuff," he's got mystical ki energy backing up his punch. If you don't cultivate that energy or an equivalent, then you can't do what the monk does -- it's physically impossible.
To the proposed paladin, I would ask, where are you getting your powers from? The gods only give such powers to those who follow a very narrow path. Why are they going to give you these powers just because you want them a lot? I'm not necessarily looking for an answer here, but if someone brought such a character to me, and had an answer to those questions that I could buy, I'd take it -- and that'd be up to the DM. If the paladin replied "I'm getting my powers from X-source," then some DMs would say, "Okay, how nifty and flavourful," and other DMs would say, "Look, X-source can't give you those powers, so that's not gonna work."
And I wouldn't question the DM either way; he's the one who best knows how his world works, and there are some things you simply can't do, and some powers you simply can't have for nothing.

Crap, that got long.

[Pegasos989]

(I have changed the order of some of the quotes so I can get all about one subject to one place, don't be confused)

I think this depends, and thus it would be different for different classes. Take the fighter. The fighter may be typically a soldier, as written in the fluff (this is simplified, just flow with it). His "powers," as it were, come from his training.
Now, if you want to play a fighter who isn't a soldier, you have to explain where your powers are coming from, if not a soldier's training.

See where I'm going?

I certainly do.

Take the monk. The monk gets his power from his discipline, meditation, and monastical life. His constant dedication to keeping his body pure and strong. You don't get monk powers for free -- so in my book, you can't just say, "Well, I'm good at punching stuff" and use that as your monk fluff. Sure, you may throw out the outer fluff in some circumstances; you may have not grown up in a monastary, but trained under a single wandering master who taught you to flow with change, to value your freedom of spirit as your power -- and then perhaps you have a chaotic monk. But the core, inner fluff of a discipline and dedication to enhancing one's own body still remain. I think taking the mystic aspect out of monks isn't fair -- "Well, most people have to train and discipline their bodies to achieve this power... but I get it 'cause... I wanted to specialise in punching things."

Now, to go specific -- to the boxer character, I would say, "That's not possible." Why is your fist doing more damage than a manufactured weapon? The monk isn't just "really good at punching stuff," he's got mystical ki energy backing up his punch. If you don't cultivate that energy or an equivalent, then you can't do what the monk does -- it's physically impossible.

I think that we disagree about one thing here. You see boxer as simply "I want to specialize in punching things" and then getting to 20th level. I could follow similar idea and see monk as just some weak man who lives in monastery copying books and thus should in no friggin' way ever get any physical prowess. Both of these represent very narrow views - you are thinking about a general young guy who does boxing once in a while, I am thinking about classic monk living in medieval Europe. However, in neither situation the class is based on those images.

What if the boxer is extremely diciplined? The guy I know, who I mentioned earlier... He was competing for finnish heavy weight boxing championship but he has not just "decided to get good at punching things hard". He has spent a lot of his time training several combat and sports combat techniques (including but not being limited to wrestling, kraw maga, boxing and kickboxing) in USA, Israel and I think that in some other countries too. He went there, away from home and to strange country, just to become better at what he does. He might not have gotten that much KI powers from meditation but I would still stat him as a 4th level monk in DnD and would not even concider thinking that he somehow got his skills for free because he wanted to specialize in hitting things hard.

Also, words physically impossible should be kept as far away from DnD as possible. And improved unarmed damage? Maybe he knows where to hit, which bones break easily, which punch knocks opponent unconcious... It is a lot more logical than wizard stopping time, monk turning ethereal, fighter gettin 64 attacks per round (or was it 32 only? that gestalt thri keen...)

The problem I have with just discarding ALL the fluff is that then your character -- forget the player -- is getting things for free. Sure, most wizards have to study and work hard to accomplish spellcasting, but I want to be a wizard who didn't have to. Yes, most paladins make themselves the tools of their gods, and most have to follow a strict code and sacrifice their own decisions and convenience for carrying out their deities' wishes in an honorable manner in order to remain empowered by these gods... but I want nifty god-powers ANYWAY, without having to do all that. I want to do as much damage as a friggin' martial weapon with my fist, but I don't want to do any of that silly discipline stuff.

Clerics get that. Clerics don't have a code of honor, clerics have a lot easier alignment restrictions and yet, clerics get more power from gods, just because they reflavoured themselves as using time to worship the gods.

Sure, so does everyone. Heck, I'd like nifty god-powers. But I don't get them just by being so angry that I want them really, really bad, any more than I'll suddenly get strength, martial tactics, weapon proficiencies from really wanting to be able to fight. I have to work for it. I have to do something to get these powers.

You also won't get them by meditating and trying to harness your KI energy, I would claim. This is DnD. Besides, as said, there can be boxer who really works a lot get his skills.

Which is why I'm a fan of preserving the inner fluff, but allowing the outer fluff to change. If someone can preserve the thing that makes a class what it is, but wants to change some gameworld aspect of it, I don't see a problem. I do see a problem when someone wants to get rid of the source of a class's power, and still have that power (Clerics are the only exceptions we've been given, because apparently deities are cool with granting powers to deity-less clerics. *shrug* Go figure).

To the proposed paladin, I would ask, where are you getting your powers from? The gods only give such powers to those who follow a very narrow path. Why are they going to give you these powers just because you want them a lot? I'm not necessarily looking for an answer here, but if someone brought such a character to me, and had an answer to those questions that I could buy, I'd take it -- and that'd be up to the DM. If the paladin replied "I'm getting my powers from X-source," then some DMs would say, "Okay, how nifty and flavourful," and other DMs would say, "Look, X-source can't give you those powers, so that's not gonna work."
And I wouldn't question the DM either way; he's the one who best knows how his world works, and there are some things you simply can't do, and some powers you simply can't have for nothing.

Crap, that got long.

LN god gives powers to neutral, lawful good, lawful evil and lawful neutral clerics with no code of honor. Why would the deities grant less power for martial characters and require steeper restrictions for that?

EDIT: As a summary, it seems that you think that character does no work at all for his skills unless he uses the specified flavor. I am trying to say that he can have entirely diffrent flavor and still do the same amount of work.

And besides, what if some characters get stuff easier? We have stronger races (most with level adjustment), inherited templates (half dragon for example), inborn talent classes (sorcerer)...

EDIT 2: And actually, I find it very wierd viewpoint to compare what is fair to characters. My job as a DM is to ensure that every player has fun, not that their characters have fun.

[Shazzbaa]

What if the boxer is extremely diciplined? The guy I know, who I mentioned earlier...[...] I... would not even concider thinking that he somehow got his skills for free because he wanted to specialize in hitting things hard.

Also, words physically impossible should be kept as far away from DnD as possible.

*laughs* I can see your point. But I'd argue that the reason the monk can do what he can, and others can't do it, is that he's got mystical power backing his up. For one thing, just because D&D doesn't match up to real life physics doesn't mean I can't want it to be as internally consistant as I can have it. And as far as I can see, there isn't anything to suggest within D&D's world that you can get that kind of ability without the monk's training. It's not just that the monk is disciplined or dedicated; it's what the monk is disciplined and dedicated to doing. Replicating the monk's powers without the monk's training is physically impossible within the world, and to me that's what's important.

Clerics get that. Clerics don't have a code of honor, clerics have a lot easier alignment restrictions and yet, clerics get more power from gods, just because they reflavoured themselves as using time to worship the gods.

I can actually understand this, and could spend a few pages explaining why I would see the clerics tending to be closer to their deities by simple virtue of their lifestyle and worship... etcetera. But instead I shall just say, Yup, that's how it is. Within this world of D&D, clerical duties get a character a certain kind of divine power, and a paladin's dedication gets it an entirely different sort of divine power.

You also won't get them by meditating and trying to harness your KI energy, I would claim. This is DnD. Besides, as said, there can be boxer who really works a lot get his skills.

Hehehe, true. But once again, I'm not just saying "You can't do it IRL so you can't do it in D&D," as I'm sure you've gathered by now. I'm more trying to say that within D&D's world, you can't do that. The boxer can work really hard at his skills, but his skills will not be those of a monk, because he won't have the monk's ki backing up his blows.

EDIT: As a summary, it seems that you think that character does no work at all for his skills unless he uses the specified flavor. I am trying to say that he can have entirely diffrent flavor and still do the same amount of work.

And besides, what if some characters get stuff easier? We have stronger races (most with level adjustment), inherited templates (half dragon for example), inborn talent classes (sorcerer)...

Hmm, then you seem to have misunderstood me. Let's see if I can say this more clearly... I'm not saying the monk works hard and the boxer isn't working hard, to stick with the example we've got going. I'm saying the boxer can't do what the monk does. The monk is following a specific path to get the skills he has, and the boxer can't get those skills without following that path.
I have no interest in making life "fair" for the characters; as you mentioned, some characters do get something for nothing. Sorcerers are a good example -- they're just born with it. Okay, so that's how sorcery works, if you're born with it, you've got it. You can't learn it. If someone tried to learn sorcery, I would say, "No, that's impossible within this world." If someone tried to achieve monk powers without following the monk's path, I would say, "No, that's impossible within this world."

EDIT 2: And actually, I find it very wierd viewpoint to compare what is fair to characters. My job as a DM is to ensure that every player has fun, not that their characters have fun.

Ahh, I think I already touched on this, but I'll reiterate I'm really not worrying about making the characters' lives fair. I'm more worried about the internal consistencies in the world. Unless I'm specifically changing things for my world, I'd assume they work the way that the rulebooks put forth... and the way that stuff is put forth, you get X powers by doing X things (which can be training a certain way, pledging allegiance to a certain god, or simply inheriting). If you want X powers without doing X things, then that just doesn't make sense to me in terms of the world unless you provide a servicable substitute. To me, the boxer training really hard won't give him monk powers, any more than the magic-lover studying magic really hard would give him sorcerer powers, because that's just the way these things work within this world.

Naturally, this is just the way I see things; and whenever I'm good enough to DM, that's how things will work. If you see things working differently within your world, then I wouldn't argue -- and were I playing in your game, I would do my best to understand the way your world works and exist within it. I'm merely explaining how I would rule, given the scenario, and why I see it that way. In your world, monks' powers may not need ki. In mine, they would, and that's why I wouldn't allow the boxer.

[Bouldering Jove]

"Inner fluff" and "Outer fluff" are great terms I need to remember for future discussions similar to this topic. Thank you.

So, we've moved on a bit from strictly the assassin business to a more general discussion of how we view the role of mechanics in D&D. All roleplaying games are exercises in giving "Let's make believe" a codified system of representational rules. Each system will have its different suitabilities, and D&D leans toward a suitability for strategic turn-based battles a lot more than it leans towards roleplay. In my opinion, many people more interested in roleplaying and story-based aspects of the game probably wouldn't even be playing D&D if it wasn't the iconic roleplaying game. D&D isn't unsuitable for roleplaying (no system really can be if the players are determined), but that isn't its primary focus, and the rules do not distinguish between helpful guidelines and fundamental requirements. The druid case is a good example of this, because the armor restriction has arguments for either way, but there are components of game balance in that requirement; ignoring the requirement because you want to roleplay a druid on the "no restriction" side of the argument causes real game troubles.

But this is a dispute over an element of the alignment system. With a few exceptions (e.g. smiting), alignment disputes are purely roleplaying issues rather than mechanical ones. So if you're playing a game where combat is the most important thing, I think keeping the alignment requirement is just a way of spiting a player interested in an ability set and inevitably leading them to purchase a splatbook that will give them the prestige class they're looking for without the restriction. If roleplaying is prominent in your game, though, you do have a real conundrum.

A lot of the arguments presented here have strong merit behind them, even when they directly oppose. This is a function of different perspectives on the alignment system, including the perspective that it's a restrictive farce that should be dispensed with. Frankly, most of the discussion about killing vs. murdering is interesting but irrelevant; the game has already ruled on it. So the issue with the assassin is altering the alignment system in the game to suit your personal philosophy, which seems to me like a no-brainer, and the issue with class crunch alterations in general is whether the class system constitutes a crunchy framework or an archetype that should not be dispensed with. That's a real meaty discussion, but it's also very silly. Prestige classes are so abundant that you should be able to find one with the right crunch and flavor (like that "good assassin" prestige class that's been mentioned), and I would also argue that through the overabundance of prestige classes, Wizard has pretty much admitted that "crunchy framework" is the right way to view classes. How can a class really be a heroic archetype if it's a gateway towards a significantly different heroic archetype?

[MaN]

My favorite inconsistancy is that heavy armor so greatly restricts your character's movement that he can no longer duck, dodge, or evade his opponent's sword very well (AC) yet the armor has no negative effect when he tries to duck, dodge, or evade a lightning bolt (Reflex save).


So how about instead of a good-aligned assassin we create the Anesthesiologist PrC. He is LG because instead of using poisons he only uses legally prescribed drugs to temporarily incapacitate his opponent. If the drugs have any adverse side-effects, however, he loses all class abilities until he atones or at least covers the co-pay on his malpractice insurance.

[Captain van der Decken]

This I believe is a good example of the difference between the mindset of the regular fighter and that of the Assassin... I think even a Chaotic Neutral character would balk at the thought of killing an innocent in cold blood.

That's more of the mindset of an evil character, than an assassin, specifically. Any evil character might ask the same thing.
On the other hand, they might also balk at the idea.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I think that we disagree about one thing here. You see boxer as simply "I want to specialize in punching things" and then getting to 20th level. I could follow similar idea and see monk as just some weak man who lives in monastery copying books and thus should in no friggin' way ever get any physical prowess. Both of these represent very narrow views - you are thinking about a general young guy who does boxing once in a while, I am thinking about classic monk living in medieval Europe. However, in neither situation the class is based on those images.

Okay, here you're deliberately misinterpreting the term "monk". D&D uses "monk" to mean "shaolin monk" not "benedictine friar."

If somebody came to me and said "I want to play a Monk who spends all his time copying out manuscripts by hand" I'd tell them to play a cloistered cleric.

What if the boxer is extremely diciplined? The guy I know, who I mentioned earlier... He was competing for finnish heavy weight boxing championship but he has not just "decided to get good at punching things hard". He has spent a lot of his time training several combat and sports combat techniques (including but not being limited to wrestling, kraw maga, boxing and kickboxing) in USA, Israel and I think that in some other countries too. He went there, away from home and to strange country, just to become better at what he does. He might not have gotten that much KI powers from meditation but I would still stat him as a 4th level monk in DnD and would not even concider thinking that he somehow got his skills for free because he wanted to specialize in hitting things hard.

But that's the thing, he's extremely disciplined, but he's disciplined at punching things. That doesn't make him a monk, that makes him a Fighter with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. He's only a monk if he's gone to an honest to god Shaolin monastary and trained there with a genuine desire to embrace their philosophical as well as their martial teachings.

Also, words physically impossible should be kept as far away from DnD as possible. And improved unarmed damage? Maybe he knows where to hit, which bones break easily, which punch knocks opponent unconcious... It is a lot more logical than wizard stopping time, monk turning ethereal, fighter gettin 64 attacks per round (or was it 32 only? that gestalt thri keen...)

I grant you that the words "physically impossible" have no place in D&D, however the words "impossible without special prerequisites" are very, very important. Monks develop their powers through intensive training, meditation, and channeling their ki. That, in the default gameworld, is where monk powers come from. If you don't get them in that way, you do not get the monk powers.

EDIT 2: And actually, I find it very wierd viewpoint to compare what is fair to characters. My job as a DM is to ensure that every player has fun, not that their characters have fun.

But that's sort of my point. If I play a traditional monk, and you play some guy who has all the same powers as a monk but got them because he just really, really liked punching people, that devalues my character concept.

At the risk of sounding simultaneously old and anglocentric, I do wonder if the attitude that your character should be able to develop any set of powers that seems useful to them is an artefact of the (rather modern, rather American) idea that anybody can do anything if they set their mind to it: the Hollywood-propogated notion that if you *want* something badly enough it *will* happen, no matter what the circumstances.

Personally, I prefer the idea that things need to be done the right way: you can't learn the skills of a Monk without joining a Monastary, or the skills of a Cleric without joining a church. And of course you can't learn the skills of an Assassin (capital A) without joining the Assassin's guild.

[Khantalas]

You aren't a boxer until you have Superior Unarmed Strike.

Improved isn't enough.

[Pegasos989]

Oh, right. Forgot that one.

I want to do as much damage as a friggin' martial weapon with my fist, but I don't want to do any of that silly discipline stuff.

Orc fighter level 4, str 22, Improved unarmed strike, weapon focus, unarmed strike, weapon finesse, superior unarmed strike, weapon specialization, unarmed strike.
Unarmed strike +11 melee (2d6 +8)
Then to take two levels of barbarian and raging, for
Unarmed strike +15/+10 melee (2d6 +10)

So yes, in DnD, you can hit a lot by just skill, training and strenght.

[Matthew]

Is there something that prevents him taking Two Weapon Fighting? I would have thought that would be handy for a Boxer build?

[Bears With Lasers]

But that's sort of my point. If I play a traditional monk, and you play some guy who has all the same powers as a monk but got them because he just really, really liked punching people, that devalues my character concept.

...um.

How?

[endoperez]

But that's the thing, he's extremely disciplined, but he's disciplined at punching things. That doesn't make him a monk, that makes him a Fighter with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. He's only a monk if he's gone to an honest to god Shaolin monastary and trained there with a genuine desire to embrace their philosophical as well as their martial teachings.

I'd rather say that he's only a monk if he gets the bonus against enchantment, Ki Strike, slow fall, Purity/Wholeness etc of Body and all that. A boxer/disciplined fighter could have some of those, but Wholeness of Body at the very least is something you can't get just by wanting or training enough. It must come from some kind of a mystical source, and if the source is the same one from which Monks get it from, you need to have a similar philosophy and way of life.

At the risk of sounding simultaneously old and anglocentric, I do wonder if the attitude that your character should be able to develop any set of powers that seems useful to them is an artefact of the (rather modern, rather American) idea that anybody can do anything if they set their mind to it: the Hollywood-propogated notion that if you *want* something badly enough it *will* happen, no matter what the circumstances.

Learning to fight really, really well, perhaps even being better than anyone else, could happen in certain circumstances. Just wanting it wouldn't do it. Spending all your time in training yourself with the greatest masters you could find wouldn't be enough either if you didn't find the right masters or couldn't afford it or if you got sick and your health was destroyed or if you had broken some bone that hand't healed well enough to let you train. But we're not talking about being the best possible fighter, but being as good a fighter as a Monk. That (3/4th BAB, unarmed damage and unarmoured AC, Evasion, Flurry of Blows and perhaps some form of Ki Strike) can be reached with enough dedication, if the trainee can learn what he has to learn (being taught, or ancient scrolls of wisdom/visions from a god/having seen your master/father/brother train before you etc in a D&D world).

The mystical abilities of the monk, on the other hand, couldn't be achieved by combat training. If there was a class modeled after Monk that didn't get these mystical abilities, and had fluff about dedication and combat training, could you accept it?

[Pegasos989]

Is there something that prevents him taking Two Weapon Fighting? I would have thought that would be handy for a Boxer build?

Well, depends. On the other hand, two weapon fighting is a good feat as it imitates flurry but I am not 100% sure if it should be taken, because if taking hammer fist ( http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-...ammer_Fist,all ), he gets 1.5x str on damage while TWF gives only half on offhand attacks (if I remember correctly) and it is generally atleast as good to boost fewer attacks than to add more weaker attacks. Yet, as soon as there is feats to spare, it would be propably worth taking.

(Btw, with that feat, the ftr 4/barbarian 2 would have had attack of +15/+10 (2d6 +14), then propably going to psywar for more feats and psionic focus... Ah, psionic fist and greater psionic fist feats... +4d6 damage when expending psionic focus)

Anyways, the point was just to show that the unarmed fighting is not monk exclusive and they are not even best at it, if not core only game. It was to counter "but you need to be from monastery and meditate to be good at unarmed strikes" which isn't true even in DnD.

Then why to even take the class instead of going so much better route?
a) It would be easiear and simpler
b) It would be more flavour fitting to have class with in built mechanics for this (we aren't gonna get 100% fitting mechanics. Monks have some non-boxery abilities but fighters have those too. class skills, martial weapon profiency, etc... and so do barbarians...)

[Matthew]

Heh, that should be called Star Trek Punch. A fairly good reason to not take Two Weapon Fighting, though. I wonder how Power Attack interacts with it, given that it works with Unarmed Strike (and it does). Probably 1 to 1, since it says nothing else...

[Pegasos989]

Heh, that should be called Star Trek Punch. A fairly good reason to not take Two Weapon Fighting, though. I wonder how Power Attack interacts with it, given that it works with Unarmed Strike (and it does). Probably 1 to 1, since it says nothing else...

Yeah. Though I think that MacGyver used the punch too, more than once. Then we should add the roundhouse kick from CWar and thus have the best of Macgyver, Star trek characters and Chuck Norris.

And about that feat + power attack... I think that by RaW it doesn't affect power attack in any way and I think it is a good feat even if it won't... However, I don't think it would be particularly overpowered or broken even if it affected power attack ratio (you spent several feats for something that two handed weapons get for free).

[Amphimir Míriel]

That's more of the mindset of an evil character, than an assassin, specifically. Any evil character might ask the same thing.
On the other hand, they might also balk at the idea.

What I was trying to convey is that, for a character class dedicated to killing people in cold blood (not in combat), an evil alignment requirement makes sense... but hey, that's just me and my campaign.

[Mike_G]

What I was trying to convey is that, for a character class dedicated to killing people in cold blood (not in combat), an evil alignment requirement makes sense... but hey, that's just me and my campaign.

So is a modern sniper evil? He trains long and hard to kill people in cold blood, who are unaware of his presence, outside of actual combat. No fight. Kill. And not in battle, but to stalk hopefully important enemy officers, specialists, etc, and zap them when the least expect it.

So the grunt who triggers an ambush and shoots back is less evil than a sniper?

Is firing automatic weapons at the enemy in the village in an active battle less evil than waiting and sniping an enemy as he leaves or enters a village? Or walks to the outhouse? The "honorable" way is much more likely to get your people and civillians killed by complete accident.

I really think the Evil requirement only makes sense if you have to kill an innocent to get into the guild. Just knowing how to kill sneakily is hardly more evil than killing openly. Whom you kill is far more important than how you kill them.

In this Marine's humble opinion, anyway.

[Iron_Mouse]

I always assumed that you need the evil alignment not to train as an assassin. But you need it to get into an assassin's guild, which is basically the only place where you can be trained in the assassin prc.
The DMG says: "The character must kill someone for no other reasons than to join the assassins." And it mentions that almost all NPC assassins work in guilds or organizations of some kind.

Now, an assassin guild is an evil organization full of murderers, who have to be willing to kill virtually anyone and anything without question. A "but I don't want to kill innocents!" character is wrong there, because killing innocents is part of the job. For every assassin. The guildmaster says "go and kill that child!" and you do it. Exceptions for PCs? Why?

Of course, there's nothing wrong to invent neutral of even good organizations who specialise in killing only evil targets, and have some kind of moral code, but still use the same tricks and technics as the evil assassins (thus have other alignment restrictions etc.).
But the core books refer to Greyhawk and there seem to exist no such organizations.

[Dan_Hemmens]

...um.

How?

Because an extremely important part of my character concept is that his powers stem from his dedication to the perfection of mind, body, and spirit. If somebody else gets the *same* powers without the *same* dedication to the perfection of mind, body, and spirit, my character concept is undermined. Every time I say something like "remember: to truly follow the way of the warrior you must achieve true inner stillness" I have this other guy acting as living, breathing proof that my character's entire philosophy on life is bull****.

[Jack Mann]

So, say I make a fighter. I have him as a warrior born, who has trained with the sword from birth and worked to find the greatest of all swordsmen across the land, honing his craft to perfection, someone else can't make a fighter who's a peasant-soldier with the same skills, since that dilutes my concept?

[Demented]

This happens so often in reality that we have a system for it.
The less common (usually chaotic) version is labelled a rebel, becomes unilaterally hated by the more numerous version, and is then hunted down and killed.

Usually there's a lot of spittle and harsh words somewhere in there.

Though in a D&D setting I don't see why one devalues the other, any more than a Wizard is devalued by the existence of Sorcerors (or vice versa). Roleplayed, they both would complain the other devalues them, but as a game, they have their corresponding strengths.

[Luc]

I'm not sure why people are bothered by the idea of one character becoming as powerful as another through less in-character effort. After all, there's already a group of people who can learn in a few months more than most people learn through an entire lifetime of rigorous training. They're called the player characters.

[Gamebird]

Fluff vs. Crunch silliness:

-- All characters who experience a combat learn from it.

-- Characters whose power comes from a god get more power by experiencing combats, even if their god is a pacifist and hates combat.

-- Characters whose power comes from a genetic fluke or ancestry (sorcerors) get more power by experiencing combats.

-- No matter how much you train in using your sword or spells, or meditate on your navel or your god's glory, you will never get better at using any of these things. Even if your trainer is Bruce Lee/an archmage/the pope/an angel/a dragon, your character will not learn anything unless he has a dangerous combat experience.

-- Speaking of which, it is impossible to learn a language or a new skill until you've fought things.

-- You can't learn a little of something - you have to learn the whole thing. You can't learn just a little Elven, enough to get you through greetings and ordering food at restaurants. You have to be fluent. And you can attain fluency while in the middle of a dungeon crawl, if you happen to level up then.

[Demented]

Don't forget about roleplaying exp!
NPCs get TONS of it, I'd imagine.

[Cthulhu]

I always assumed that you need the evil alignment not to train as an assassin. But you need it to get into an assassin's guild, which is basically the only place where you can be trained in the assassin prc.
The DMG says: "The character must kill someone for no other reasons than to join the assassins." And it mentions that almost all NPC assassins work in guilds or organizations of some kind.

Does that make james bond evil? You don't get to be a double 0 until you've killed two people :)

[Scorpina]

...I always thought it was pretty obvious that Bond was Evil...

[Bouldering Jove]

...I always thought it was pretty obvious that Bond was Evil...

He's perfectly willing to risk his life and die for his country, without personal gain even entering it, but the methods for achieving his goals don't morally concern him. I'd consider that Lawful Neutral.

[Scorpina]

He risks the lives of innocent bystanders on a regular basis.

...and don't even get me started on his general bastadry and attitude to women.