Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "Re: Assassins Gone from 3rd Ed?!"

The Wraith <wraith@powerup.com.au> wrote in message

news:380d795f.89657901@nntp.powerup.com.au...

> On 19 Oct 1999 21:11:43 PDT, "Dave" wrote:
> >The Wraith <wraith@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:380c248e.2408613@nntp.powerup.com.au...
> >> On 18 Oct 1999 21:19:17 PDT, "Dave" wrote:

> >> In other words, *you* merely declared that John was applying a
> >> criterion inconsistently. That doesn't make it so.

> >Not at all. I applauded what John has done, since he *did* remove these
> >other classes (ranger, bard, paladin, etc.) when he removed the assassin.
> >You obviously haven't read much of this thread if you are this off the
mark.

> Finally, I am out of the realm of theory and into reality, after
> wiping (some of) Dave's errors from my eyes! Dave, how do you expect
> me to properly follow what you are talking about when you repeatedly
> call *Jay* "John"?

I copied it from the "john v verkuilen" that appeared as his name in each of
his posts. If you are following this thread, you will see this name
associated with each of his posts. I copied it from the "john v verkuilen
wrote" heading preceding the text of the message.

> Now that I know what you are talking about, the rest of it makes even
> less sense. Jay did *not* propose a criterion that should not be
> checked when adding a new class.

Never said he did. I actually agree with what he is saying for the most
part, and I have already posted this earlier.

> His criterion is checked both when
> considering adding and considering removing a class. This is why he
> argues *against* the inclusion of more classes.

Which is something I do not have a problem with, as he is applying it
consistently. I have already said this elsewhere in this thread.

> >> It would, according to you descriptions, because "D" only applies to a
> >> class which is currently a part of the system. Basically, you don't
> >> check to see if the assassin is handled by other rules when adding it
> >> back in.

> >I don't add it back in. Read "D" again - the key word is "removing", not
> >"adding."

> Read *all* of it, Dave. I didn't say that you were adding anything in.
> The point was, if the criterion was checked upon considering for
> removal, but not considering for adding, the assassin would just be
> added back.

First off, you used the phrase "adding it back in". I keep explaining that
"D" deals only with *removal* of classes. If "D" is applied, once a class
is removed it is *gone*. It does not come back while "D" is in effect.
This goes for the assassin, the ranger, the bard, and any other classes so
affected. "D" was the reason given in the Game Wizards column prior to 2nd
edition of why the assassin was removed - it can be approximated by other
classes. The assassin's exclusive skills, such as disguise, were then
reintroduced as NWP's available to all in 2nd edition.

> Of course *you* aren't adding anything in. You aren't even giving the
> slightest consideration to removal in the first place. What *you* do
> has nothing to do with it.

You obviously are not reading these threads very well if that is what you
believe. I'm giving the same consideration to classes like the ranger and
bard as was given to the assassin class.

> >> If you do, then you have no inconsistency - that criterion is
> >> consistently being used to ensure that heavily-overlapping classes are
> >> not outlined in the rules of the game.

> >I am happy with either of 2 outcomes - 1) applying standard "D" to all
> >classes. This removes the assassin, the ranger, the bard, etc. We are
left
> >with the fighter, cleric, mage, and thief classes, since "D" will not be
> >able to remove these core classes. 2) do not apply "D" at all. This
leaves
> >us with the assassin, ranger, bard, and all the other normal subclasses.
> >Either approach is consistent. If standard "D" is to be applied, apply
it
> >to all classes or apply it to no classes.

> Criterion: Classes in the game should fulfill a role uniquely.
> Assassins fail the criterion, as they are just a specific form of
> stealthy person.

Assassins pass the criterion, as they fufill a known fantasy archetype and
are skilled in the art of assassination. Stealth may assist in
assassination, just like some combat ability may assist a thief in a
mugging.

> Rangers pass (in modified form) as they uniquely
> fulfill the role of the survival-skill focussed character. Bards pass
> as they uniquely fulfill the role of social-focussed character.

They fill their roles just as well as the assassin does its role.

> There is consistent application of a criterion. I does not have either
> of the outcomes you suggest must result. You might not be happy, but
> there is no inconsistency.

You have yet to show any consistent application has occurred. You may not
be happy that this is the case, but until you prove otherwise that will
remain the case.

> >> >Sure there is. It is the ability to instantly kill a character given
> >> >optimal conditions and the victim's guard down.

> >> There is a rule for that. It is available to all classes, as it should
> >> be. The special skill of the assassin is what gets him there more
> >> often.

> >You are mistaken. The only such rule that deals with this issue concerns
> >"helpless" characters, which are characters that are asleep, unconscious,
> >held, or somehow restrained from defending themselves.

> And if the existing rule is inadequate, it should be changed so that
> it is adequate. Old ground.

You haven't shown why it should be expanded for all characters from its
present state. You also haven;t shown why the existing rule on helpless
characters is inadequate. You are incorrectly trying to have this mechanic
model something it was not intended to do. It seems you are back to arguing
against the assassin based on mechanics again.

> >It is not logical to
> >open the assassin's ability to instantly kill a victim who is awake,
> >conscious, not held, and not restrained from defending himself, and allow
> >other classes the same ability. Why should a mage be able to acquire
this
> >ability?

> Because the assassin gets the ability from a special situation, which
> the mage cannot normally attain, but which the mage might one day find
> himself in.

Attaining the position is an accessory to the actual *primary* skill of
assassination.

> >The special skill of the assassin is the actual strike.

> Which is, of course, why he has to put so much work into creating a
> special situation to do it.

The assassin needs to strike at the opportune situation. Stealth may assist
in getting him there, but it's the killing strike that is the main ability
used.

> >> You are focussing overly on a mechanic, and not on what it models.

> >Yes, when I start a section "Mechanically speaking" that does tend to
> >indicate that I am discussing a mechanic.

> Note the use of the word "overly".

When discussing this with you, I find that I have to focus on the mechanics
because that is all you seem to dwell upon. Conceptually, you have yet to
provide anything against the assassin.

> >Your only arguments depend on
> >mechanics, as conceptually it's the assassin's ability to kill that is
his
> >calling card.

> It is the assassin's ability to kill *by means of stealth* that is his
> calling card.

Not at all. It is the assassin's ability to kill *by any means* that is the
defining ability here.

> >You keep focusing on various skills (i.e. mechanics) in your
> >argument. It matters not how the assassin gets in position. Simply put,
no
> >special degree of stealth is absolutely required, though stealth can
surely
> >*assist* in the process.

> Which is why the rules are so specific about the target having to be
> unaware of the intended blow.

So their defenses are not active when the assassin strikes. The concept is
quite clear - if the victim's defenses are active, he will be able to defend
against the assassination attempt. If the defenses are down, the assassin
has a chance to kill his victim.

> >However, the ability to kill a victim instantly is
> >an absolute requirement to assassinate.

> So a poison which takes effect in two minutes time doesn't count?
> Yeah, right.

Ah, I see where now delving into semantics when your other arguments fail
you. If you must bring mechaincs back into it, then think of it as the
ability to kill a victim by one action. Strangling, for example, does does
not induce deah in one millisecond. However, it is one continuous act that
causes death.

> >Since this character with "survival skills" is not based on combat,
stealth,
> >magic, or faith (as you claim), this means your would-be ranger would no
> >longer be under the Warrior core class,

> The warrior *group* is not a class.

Oh *that* changes everything! Semantics once again. Your would-be ranger
would no longer be under the Warrior core *group*. Feel better now?

> Whether the modified class retains enough basic mechanics to make it
> worth keeping it within the warrior group could really only be
> answered if it were actually done. If it were kept within the warrior
> group, I would suggest revising the definition of that group somewhat,
> given that the description of the group stresses the importance of
> "skill at arms" amongst all characters of the group. However, groups
> really only provide a shorthand method of assigning certain basic
> mechanics to classes - THAC0, hit dice, saves and so on - and even
> those vary somewhat within groups - note the various specialty priests
> with differing hit dice. I think the system would stand up to a little
> relaxing there.

How can you even consider placing your "survival skills" class to part of
the Warriors group, when its primary asset (as you say) is skill at arms and
not "survival skills"? Face it, you would now have a "Survival Skills"
group, with your "ranger" as one of its classes.

> >since you claim you have a new Rural Dweller core class.

> No, *you* called it a "Rural Dweller", not me.

Call it whatever you want, it doesn't change the point. The four basic
groups are Warrior, Wizard, Priest, and Rogue. You have proposes a ranger
class whose primary abilities lie outside of combat (Warrior), stealth
(Rogue), magic (Wizard), and faith (Priest). Ergo, your ranger class *must*
lie outside of these 4 core groups based on your own description of your
ranger class.

> >This means that the fighting ability commonly
> >associated with the ranger would be gone, as this would violate your
> >condition that the primary abilities do not depend on combat.

> The ranger's combat ability would probably be lessened, yes. He would
> certainly lose the two-weapon combat ability. Beyond that is
> debatable, though I would personally weaken the character's general
> combat abilities.

Well, let's turn to your favorite topic of mechanics. Hit dice would
probably end up being d6, since d10 is the province for warriors and d6
represents the hit dice of classes based on skills (i.e. the thief).
Weapons would probably be restricted, although I could certainly see new
weapons allowed like the hoe and the rake.

> >How does your
> >new Rural Dweller

> By that I'll assume you mean "ranger".

> >compare with its archetypes in myths and in fantasy lit?

> Pretty damn well. The objective was to create a class which lets us
> model those characters of myth and literature who are primarily
> focussed on their survival skills. Obviously, such a modified ranger
> does this, by the very definition of the new class.

Pretty damn well? How about an example? I'm sure you must realize that all
of the archetype examples for rangers given in the 2nd edition PHB don't fit
your "survival skills" class.

> >> >These skill sets you cite are not in themselves enough to justify a
> >class.
> >> >Why don;t we break it down a little futher? Instead of having
"survival
> >> >skills", lets segment them even further. We could have "fishing
skills",
> >> >"hunting skills", "animal skills", etc. Each of them could be their
very
> >> >own class!

> >> I never suggested every skill should have a class devoted to it. That
> >> is another idea entirely, and one I certainly would not support.
> >> Survival skills in general, though, do not overlap heavily with
> >> combat, stealth or magical skills, or the application of faith. The
> >> idea is to have classes which each cover a *broad* area, not the
> >> narrowest possible.

> >... and so you propose a class that covers a *narrow* area - those who
> >possess "survival skills", with no emphasis on combat, stealth, magic or
> >faith.

> I already stated that survival skills are a broad area, not a narrow
> one. Do you really think that survival skills are a specific form of
> combat skill? Maybe stealth skill? Or magic?

Is sewing part of any of these skills either? Should we be talking about a
seamstress class too? How about a cobbler class, since skills with footwear
don't fall under the basic 4 categories?

> If "survival skills"
> isn't broad enough for you, perhaps you could suggest a broader set of
> skills which subsumes "survival skills". Of course, if you do, that
> merely becomes a replacement term for "survival skills" in my
> definition of the revised ranger.

That's just the very thing - "survival skills" aren't broad at all. Anyone
can learn them, and you have yet to indicate why people skilled in combat,
stealth, magic, or faith cannot possess extensive knowledge of survival
skills.

> >> Not necessarily. As I have said, there is definitely room for a ranger
> >> concept, one which is not just a fighter in the wilderness, and for a
> >> bard, as both represent character types focussing on a particular area
> >> uniquely.

> >and there is definite room for an assassin concept, something that is a
> >fantasy archetype separate from that of a fighter and of a thief.

> Yes, there is - but not necessarily as a class, as it fails my
> *consistently applied criterion*.

only if your criterion is consistently applied, which it isn't.

> >> You should notice that I have never said that converting primary
> >> skills to proficiencies gives a good enough reason to remove a class
> >> from the game. The reason to leave the assassin out is the fact that
> >> its focus is subsumed by the thief.

> >Rad "D" again - that's contained right in there.

> Funny, I didn't think the thief was a proficiency. I thought it was a
> class.

Read "D" again - it's still all in there.

> >> This has nothing to do with
> >> conversion of abilities to proficiencies, except as the proficiencies
> >> make characters more adaptable and thus better covering various
> >> concepts.

> >IOW, you are considering *after* the fact of removing the class. It
would
> >be completely illogical to remove a class but not introduce its skills in
> >some form.

> What are you babbling about? It does not make sense under that
> criterion to remove a class without providing the means to play the
> same sort of character another way - which there is. Skills have
> nothing to do with it.

Imagine removing the assassin class in creating 2nd edition and not having a
skill for disguise, which was an exclusive skill available only to the
assassin in 1st edition. The means to "play the same sort of character
another way" depend on formerly exclusive skills be opened up to other
classes. With 2nd edition, you are looking at the end result of this
process. The class has been removed and the exclusive skills have been
converted to NWP's, allowing other classes to approximate the assassin.

> >You have yet to justify why existing
> >characters classes can not excel at these special skills or why a special
> >class is needed.

> By definition, other classes are better at something else. That's all
> there is to it.

You do realize that you could up and down the NWP list and, by your logic,
have dozens of new classes? Let's see, we could have the sailor, the
potter, the brewer, the weaver, the stonemason, the chariot driver, the
linguist, the herbalist, the armorer, the weaponsmith, the ventriloquist,
the gem cutter, the miner, etc. All these "classes" are just as valid as
your "survival skills" class by your logic.

> >> I have presented an entirely different logic for not using an assassin
> >> class. Logic dictates that the standard you present is irrelevant.

> >No, you presented the same old argument with similar results. The only
> >thing you have done is propose a massive change to the class system,

> The revision of a single class is not a massive change to the class
> system.

Sure it is. The logic behind its inclusion opens the floodgates for
numerous other "classes", which are normally possessed by either members of
the 4 main groups (Warrior, Wizard, Priest, and Rogue) or by 0-level
specialists. There has not been any reason given why a member of one of
these core groups could not spend extra NWP slots to obtain the same
extensive knowledge of "survival skills" as your alleged class.

> >which
> >the opens the door to all sorts of nonsensical classes, such as the
farmer,
> >the fisherman, the animal handler, the banker, etc.

> Only if people want to play them, and if you want them, why would
> having them be a problem?

Apply this to the assassin.

> If you do not see call to make a character type a class, then it does
> not become a class. As I have specifically stated this several times,
> I have to assume that you are wilfully ignoring it. The alternative is
> that you lack basic comprehension skills, and I try not to assume
> that.

I do not see having someone having "survival skills" meriting their own
class. You fail to see that your very own argument easily applies to the
assassin as well. All your arguments get applied inconsistently, whether
it's the reason for removing the assassin or your justification of a class
based on specializing on existing skills. The only thing you've been
consistent at is being inconsistent.

> >Of course, the 4th
> >paragraph on page 17 of the 2nd edition DMG (under the heading "Class,
> >Level, and Common Man") seems to contradict your premise. The "0-Level
> >Characters" section also has some good insight into your class
proliferation
> >proposal.

> The DMG's comments basically amount to "There are non-adventurers
> skilled in certain areas." This has nothing to do with the idea that
> there are *adventurer* archetypes not currently covered by classes in
> the AD&D system.

"The teamster or chambermaid may be exceptionally skilled and competent, but
for them this is not measured in character classes. There is no such thing
as a teamster or chambermaid class, any more than there are merchant,
sailor, prince, blacksmith, hermit, navigator, tinker, beggar, gypsy, or
clerk classes. These are the things people do, not all-encompassing
descriptions."

I seem to see the merchant listed in there, something which you gave the OK
to when trying to justify your "survival skills" class. This paragraph
nicely *refutes* your argument for creating these new classes for those
specializing in specific skills not involving combat, stealth, magic, or
faith.
--

-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft