Two points. In AD&D the assassin also has the ability to act as a spy. A skill the thief lacks. So for detailed casing of a joint, the thief and the assassin must work together. The second is that the assassination ability is not quite exclusive to the assassin. An assassin must surprise an opponent to use the assasinate skill. For everyone else, an otherwise helpless opponent allows an assassination attempt. So that "Rogue" that Thief whose backstab doesn't keep up with the other high level characters still has an option to kill outright -- he just need to work a little harder to get the opponent in a helpless condition.
Both good points. The coup de grace is definitely something that anyone can do. I think almost every table has a story of the Wizard casting sleep and the Thief shanking the unconscious. Spying is definitely underutilized too. It's a great downtime activity for Assassins, but one need only look at Harmony's replies to see how few people properly utilize downtime…
Absolutely. Not only that, but Assassins have a near-supernatural skill at disguise.
(PHB, pg. 29)
"Primary abilities of assassins which enhance their function are those of being able to speak alignment languages [other than their own!] and being able to disguise … The secondary function of the assassin is spying."
Their PRIMARY function is disguise(!) and their secondary function is spying. This makes them the perfect complement for a thief.
For anyone interested, I wrote an extensive examination of the AD&D assassin's abilities and role ( https://primevalpatterns.substack.com/p/resolution-systems-part-1 ). There really is no comparison out there, and this makes it clear that an astonishing depth and richness of gameplay was casually tossed aside with the march of editions.
The reason for Disguise being the primary ability is because a successful Disguise allows the Assassin to gain Surprise on a target guaranteed, which triggers Assassination table checks for instant kills. The Assassin is a Sucker-Puncher.
Which is why the Assassin, along with the Ranger, are two of the most dangerous classes in AD&D1e, and on the rare occasion where they somehow work together (likely due to an Assassin being Disguised to track a target the Ranger is also tracking, so the Ranger does not know he's working with one) they are devastating due to the combination of Surprise and Instant-Kill.
After having learned so much in recent years, it is unfathomable how they destroyed the rich tapestry of work that was free for the taking in AD&D. The modern landscape of RPGs looks 10x as bleak as it did to me 10 years ago.
I completely agree on the Rogue class. It need to be split back into Thief and Assassin. I also completely agree that those classes should not try to be front line fighters. I am a very strong believer in protected niches for classes.
That said, once again its not the grid that causes this. Those are great for knowing who got hit by a fireball or if you have a clear shot at the magic user while he is casting, or if you can get a flanking/back-attack bonus, or if you can charge, etc.
The problem is misusing the combat grid. The problem is, as you described it, using the grid as a “JRPG Pocket Dimension.” Just because the combat grid is "On" in combat doesn't mean you can't sneak, improvise, hide, etc. I think this also comes from many GMs not actually giving enough room details to have things to improvise with. Its hard to drop a chandelier on enemies, if you are in a literal empty 20x20 room with absolutely nothing in it but a monster.
What Thule was trying to say yesterday and what I'm saying here is that the grid, while useful, does often limit the imagination of the people present. I've played with players who can't envision things unless they're present on the map. It's like the meme of people who can't picture an apple in their mind. Some people cannot fill an empty space with their own imagination if there's an empty space on the table in front of them
Ive been using a grid to help players visualize range and position since the idea was introduced in the Player Options book combat and tactics.
I think the bigger issue is that GMs don't design encounters that set up well for anything beyond the minimal effort tactic of deal more damage.
Locked to the grid mindset is something I see in new players who have limited experience and tend to come from 4e 5e or watching an actual play.
The second the game pushes the players to think and not just react locked to the grid simply stops existing.
Hatred for the grid often gets people to argue for a return to theater of the mind or breaking out the rulers like war gamers of old. This is dumb.
I would rather have to spend one session teaching players that the grid is just a measuring stick and that that chandlier I mentioned is still there than have to spend as much time clarifying reach and position as pure theater of the mind play requires.
Do not get me started on the ruler fudging bullshit that is Warhammer.
In principle I agree with you. However, I've found that a lot of players straight-up cannot hold an image in their mind that's different from what they see. It also doesn't help that video games have trained people to only focus on damage to the monster.
And I agree with ya :P I think it's why we see so many new GMs focusing on these beautiful VTT maps, but walk me through your reasoning here. Players who can't hold an image beyond what they see sounds like they would have no ability to keep up with a theater of the mind battlefield. Especially anything more complex than two planes of action.
My point was training players to move beyond the basics such as just dealing damage is part of good game mastery.
Usually I find myself teaching to think in 3 dimensions first.
There are some good points here and a good expression of my frustration with D&D from 3e onwards. The grid shifted creativity in combat away from looking at the environment and thinking about how it could be used and toward system mastery and using the available space to gain mechanical advantage.
Does anyone bother to pull an old tapestry off a wall and onto a group of foes before lighting it on fire in 5e?
I like how Old School Essentials separates the Thief and Assassins classes to protect their respective niche and keep the thief distinct from other classes.
Wait, so if the assassin can kill outright, he can just, like, assassinate a dragon or a tarrasque? That seems very difficult to manage as a DM.
And while I agree in principle with your arguments here, I have difficulty seeing how these players would feel like their actions are useful in more extended, turn-based, and combat-heavy encounters, particularly against tougher or non-human encounters.
As a DM, I have trouble adjudicating these kinds of actions in a way that doesn't feel like a cosmetic layer over regular combat mechanics. Sure, the Thief can take 2 combat rounds to sneak up to a catwalk, head over to a chandelier, and cut the rope (while hoping the enemy did not move in the meanwhile). But then what?
Well, it does some damage I guess. Let's say it kills the guy directly under it and does some damage to the guy next to him. How much? I dunno? 2d6? is that fair? Is that how much indirect chandelier damage does?
Is spending two rounds doing that better than spending two rounds attacking? The result's the same, and players aren't stupid, they know that the options are either "it does about the same damage as if you'd attacked" or "isn't effective."
It doesn't really alter the flow of the encounter compared to just attacking.
The Assassination Table was a matrix based on the level of the Assassin and the level of their target and sometimes that percentage chance was zero. The greater disparity in level, the less chance there is to assassinate. As for the size of a monster, a lucky shot is a lucky shot. A man from a fishing village killed Smaug, what's so bad about an Assassin rolling the extremely low chance to one-shot a dragon?
You're also thinking purely in terms of damage which is the problem with this mindset. The chandelier can be a distraction or it can knock someone prone or it can kill. Study your rules on fall damage and conditions in combat that impose penalties. Think creatively, not just "number go down."
Two points. In AD&D the assassin also has the ability to act as a spy. A skill the thief lacks. So for detailed casing of a joint, the thief and the assassin must work together. The second is that the assassination ability is not quite exclusive to the assassin. An assassin must surprise an opponent to use the assasinate skill. For everyone else, an otherwise helpless opponent allows an assassination attempt. So that "Rogue" that Thief whose backstab doesn't keep up with the other high level characters still has an option to kill outright -- he just need to work a little harder to get the opponent in a helpless condition.
Both good points. The coup de grace is definitely something that anyone can do. I think almost every table has a story of the Wizard casting sleep and the Thief shanking the unconscious. Spying is definitely underutilized too. It's a great downtime activity for Assassins, but one need only look at Harmony's replies to see how few people properly utilize downtime…
Absolutely. Not only that, but Assassins have a near-supernatural skill at disguise.
(PHB, pg. 29)
"Primary abilities of assassins which enhance their function are those of being able to speak alignment languages [other than their own!] and being able to disguise … The secondary function of the assassin is spying."
Their PRIMARY function is disguise(!) and their secondary function is spying. This makes them the perfect complement for a thief.
For anyone interested, I wrote an extensive examination of the AD&D assassin's abilities and role ( https://primevalpatterns.substack.com/p/resolution-systems-part-1 ). There really is no comparison out there, and this makes it clear that an astonishing depth and richness of gameplay was casually tossed aside with the march of editions.
The reason for Disguise being the primary ability is because a successful Disguise allows the Assassin to gain Surprise on a target guaranteed, which triggers Assassination table checks for instant kills. The Assassin is a Sucker-Puncher.
Which is why the Assassin, along with the Ranger, are two of the most dangerous classes in AD&D1e, and on the rare occasion where they somehow work together (likely due to an Assassin being Disguised to track a target the Ranger is also tracking, so the Ranger does not know he's working with one) they are devastating due to the combination of Surprise and Instant-Kill.
After having learned so much in recent years, it is unfathomable how they destroyed the rich tapestry of work that was free for the taking in AD&D. The modern landscape of RPGs looks 10x as bleak as it did to me 10 years ago.
That happens when the people publishing the game don't play it.
This is becoming apparent upon review of AD&D1e's output into the 1980s.
I completely agree on the Rogue class. It need to be split back into Thief and Assassin. I also completely agree that those classes should not try to be front line fighters. I am a very strong believer in protected niches for classes.
That said, once again its not the grid that causes this. Those are great for knowing who got hit by a fireball or if you have a clear shot at the magic user while he is casting, or if you can get a flanking/back-attack bonus, or if you can charge, etc.
The problem is misusing the combat grid. The problem is, as you described it, using the grid as a “JRPG Pocket Dimension.” Just because the combat grid is "On" in combat doesn't mean you can't sneak, improvise, hide, etc. I think this also comes from many GMs not actually giving enough room details to have things to improvise with. Its hard to drop a chandelier on enemies, if you are in a literal empty 20x20 room with absolutely nothing in it but a monster.
What Thule was trying to say yesterday and what I'm saying here is that the grid, while useful, does often limit the imagination of the people present. I've played with players who can't envision things unless they're present on the map. It's like the meme of people who can't picture an apple in their mind. Some people cannot fill an empty space with their own imagination if there's an empty space on the table in front of them
Fair enough.
If using a combat grid makes someone turn the game into a pen and paper JRPG, then that person/group should not use a combat grid.
I guess simply haven't seen this issue at my table.
Is it that common? Meaning have you run into this issue multiple times?
Ive been using a grid to help players visualize range and position since the idea was introduced in the Player Options book combat and tactics.
I think the bigger issue is that GMs don't design encounters that set up well for anything beyond the minimal effort tactic of deal more damage.
Locked to the grid mindset is something I see in new players who have limited experience and tend to come from 4e 5e or watching an actual play.
The second the game pushes the players to think and not just react locked to the grid simply stops existing.
Hatred for the grid often gets people to argue for a return to theater of the mind or breaking out the rulers like war gamers of old. This is dumb.
I would rather have to spend one session teaching players that the grid is just a measuring stick and that that chandlier I mentioned is still there than have to spend as much time clarifying reach and position as pure theater of the mind play requires.
Do not get me started on the ruler fudging bullshit that is Warhammer.
In principle I agree with you. However, I've found that a lot of players straight-up cannot hold an image in their mind that's different from what they see. It also doesn't help that video games have trained people to only focus on damage to the monster.
And I agree with ya :P I think it's why we see so many new GMs focusing on these beautiful VTT maps, but walk me through your reasoning here. Players who can't hold an image beyond what they see sounds like they would have no ability to keep up with a theater of the mind battlefield. Especially anything more complex than two planes of action.
My point was training players to move beyond the basics such as just dealing damage is part of good game mastery.
Usually I find myself teaching to think in 3 dimensions first.
There are some good points here and a good expression of my frustration with D&D from 3e onwards. The grid shifted creativity in combat away from looking at the environment and thinking about how it could be used and toward system mastery and using the available space to gain mechanical advantage.
Does anyone bother to pull an old tapestry off a wall and onto a group of foes before lighting it on fire in 5e?
I like how Old School Essentials separates the Thief and Assassins classes to protect their respective niche and keep the thief distinct from other classes.
Wait, so if the assassin can kill outright, he can just, like, assassinate a dragon or a tarrasque? That seems very difficult to manage as a DM.
And while I agree in principle with your arguments here, I have difficulty seeing how these players would feel like their actions are useful in more extended, turn-based, and combat-heavy encounters, particularly against tougher or non-human encounters.
As a DM, I have trouble adjudicating these kinds of actions in a way that doesn't feel like a cosmetic layer over regular combat mechanics. Sure, the Thief can take 2 combat rounds to sneak up to a catwalk, head over to a chandelier, and cut the rope (while hoping the enemy did not move in the meanwhile). But then what?
Well, it does some damage I guess. Let's say it kills the guy directly under it and does some damage to the guy next to him. How much? I dunno? 2d6? is that fair? Is that how much indirect chandelier damage does?
Is spending two rounds doing that better than spending two rounds attacking? The result's the same, and players aren't stupid, they know that the options are either "it does about the same damage as if you'd attacked" or "isn't effective."
It doesn't really alter the flow of the encounter compared to just attacking.
The Assassination Table was a matrix based on the level of the Assassin and the level of their target and sometimes that percentage chance was zero. The greater disparity in level, the less chance there is to assassinate. As for the size of a monster, a lucky shot is a lucky shot. A man from a fishing village killed Smaug, what's so bad about an Assassin rolling the extremely low chance to one-shot a dragon?
You're also thinking purely in terms of damage which is the problem with this mindset. The chandelier can be a distraction or it can knock someone prone or it can kill. Study your rules on fall damage and conditions in combat that impose penalties. Think creatively, not just "number go down."