The 'Original' Assassin

[oldkat]

1.
I'm just assuming no one played the class until Blackmoor. I say, played, meaning inside a campaign and not in the play-testing sense.

Is there information--anecdotal or better--as to who the player was? and how the experience went?

2.
Let's assume one did not want to incorporate the Blackmoor assassin as is into one's campaign. Let's imagine one wanted to take the Specialist-Assassin as described in volume 3 of the LBBs and flesh it out.

3.
Would one continue to follow the level/XP/HD template established in M&M? or that in Blackmoor? or something else?
Would one sally forth and grab class skills defined in latter editions and slap them into this new character type? or come up with something different? if so, what?

To my mind, any character could become an assassin with proper instruction. Would this be similar to what AD&D describes as multi-classing? Or dual-classed? I don't know. But it does suggest that some kind of organization would exist, working behind the scenes and pulling the strings so to say.

Just some thoughts on something I felt should be given some consideration.

Your thoughts?

[aldarron]

Assassins are an interesting case. I'm not sure if anyone even play-tested the sub-class - it's not a role the original players ever mention. I think it was Arneson's attempt to make some structural sense of Gygax thief by explaining the class in terms of the type of character given in the Assassin of Gor book.

In Blackmoor, Dave Megarry played a thief (McDuck) in 1972, but of course, his skills and advancement was no different than any other characters'. It was his activities that made him a thief. So Megarry's character advanced in levels as a fighter would. But with Gygax' thief, level advancement improves thief skills whether they ever get used or not during adventures. That sort of a skill improvement handout has always seemed a bit off. With the assassin class though you have a built in training in a professional guild.

As a class, it seems to me the Assassin plays more like a James Bond, spy like character, and that can be pretty cool. Or maybe a more direct analogy would be the Faceless Men of Game of Thrones. Arya definitely fits the mold.

So I can see a campaign that allows Assassins, but doesn't allow the thief class, and I think that sort of Assassin, using the Supp II info does flesh out the M&M assassin pretty well.

Without having given this a great deal of thought, I think the best course would be to follow the Assassin rules given in both M&M and Supp II, with cherry picked info from the Thief class. Basically I would add the Hide in Shadows, Hear Noise, Move silently, and backstab rules to the assassin. I'd also add the climbing rules but houserule that the percentages are an increased chance added to whatever the normal chance of climbing the surface would be.

With those skills, there is no reason to ever apply the "% chance of Assassination" chart (p6) to PC's. The only use for that chart would be as something to roll on for an NPC hired to go off and do some mission. Anyway, that chart was invented by Tim Kask (according to him) and didn't have anything to do with the class as submitted by Arneson.

I also don't think there is any good reason to keep the pick pockets stuff or trap disarm/detection for Assasins or any of the magic related abilities thieves gain.

So that is basically how I'm thinking I would run the class, more of a highly specialized kind of fighter, with his own XP table, using most of the Supp II rules and some of the Grehawk Thief skills.

[Todd]

I could definitely see using an assassin class and repurposing the thief class as a true burglar type.

Re skills improving whether you use them or not, that could happen with any class. If you succeed in stealing or tricking or fireballing your way to a treasure horde, a fighter could level up without fighting. A wizard could level up without casting a spell. Etc.

[aldarron]

Dec 4, 2017 18:44:49 GMT -6 Todd said:

Re skills improving whether you use them or not, that could happen with any class. If you succeed in stealing or tricking or fireballing your way to a treasure horde, a fighter could level up without fighting. A wizard could level up without casting a spell. Etc.

True, on occasion that would be possible, but realistically it would be abnormal for a fighter to gain thousands of XP sans combat, or an MU sans magic. It's not all that abnormal for a thief in a dungeon to never pick a single pocket, sometimes never to climb anything either.

However the real bugaboo is that advancement in the design of the core game is centered on force projection. Meaning the Fighter gains more HD/HP and combat prowess, as do Cleric/MU to a lesser extent with increased magic ability. They gain combat prowess through combat experience. Thieves are weak in combat and are supposed to gain most experience, in effect from picking locks, yet their combat and other stats increase just the same. It goes against the core design. Whereas the "skills improve whether you use them or not" philosophy could be used to turn a sage into a superhero just because he's good at reading treasure maps. <shrug>

[Todd]

Dec 31, 1969 18:00:00 GMT -6 “@aldarron” said:

True, on occasion that would be possible, but realistically it would be abnormal for a fighter to gain thousands of XP sans combat, or an MU sans magic. It’s not all that abnormal for a thief in a dungeon to never pick a single pocket, sometimes never to climb anything either.

Another way to put it is that fighting-men get better at firing bows regardless of whether they ever touch one. The rules just abstract all of the individual weapon skills into a single measure. Would that be a better approach for thieves?

Dec 31, 1969 18:00:00 GMT -6 “@aldarron” said:

However the real bugaboo is that advancement in the design of the core game is centered on force projection. Meaning the Fighter gains more HD/HP and combat prowess, as do Cleric/MU to a lesser extent with increased magic ability. They gain combat prowess through combat experience. Thieves are weak in combat and are supposed to gain most experience, in effect from picking locks, yet their combat and other stats increase just the same. It goes against the core design. Whereas the “skills improve whether you use them or not” philosophy could be used to turn a sage into a superhero just because he’s good at reading treasure maps. <shrug>

Thieves also gain combat prowess through combat experience. I feel like you’re splitting hairs a bit if you’re okay with wizards getting better at combat but not thieves. Or is your concept a thief only a sneaky burglar type and not anyone who might be competent in a fight?

[aldarron]

Dec 5, 2017 8:45:59 GMT -6 Todd said:

Thieves also gain combat prowess through combat experience. I feel like you’re splitting hairs a bit if you’re okay with wizards getting better at combat but not thieves. Or is your concept a thief only a sneaky burglar type and not anyone who might be competent in a fight?

So I'm considering these classes in a by the book sense, and by design thieves "are not as strong as other classes in hit dice..."(SuppII, p12). In fact, in Gygax's first print iteration of the thief he went as far as to explain "Thieves are generally not meant to fight..." (GPGPN #9). The SuppII phrase was really a rule restatement of the GPGPN phrase if you compare the text side by side. So yes, I think the D&D thief class was conceived of as a sneaky burgler.

Wizards, on the other hand, are not supposed to stay out of combat. They are supposed to avoid hand to hand melee, but are expected to be involved in the fray, fighting with spells and magic devices. Clerics split the difference between spell based warfare and weapon based warfare. D&D is built on the wargames model as far as character development goes, and that includes fantasy combat.

What the thief class did was add a non-combat skill based level progression to a system designed around combat skill progression. Adding purely non-combat skills to characters is fine, I think, as secondary additions or "beneies" of adventuring experience, but with the thief it is really a game within the game of a particular set of non combat skill progression run in parallel to the combat related advancement of the other classes. Sure it works, but I think it is a pretty awkward fit and muddies the elegance of the game, IMHO.

[foxroe]

If I were to create an Assassin class whole-cloth, and keep it within the scope of the three LBB's:

1. Same as Fighting-man
2. Chance to surprise 3:6, but limited to leather or chain, no shields
3. Able to extract and use poisons from monsters
4. Chaotic alignment only

[Todd]

Dec 6, 2017 19:29:24 GMT -6 foxroe said:

If I were to create an Assassin class whole-cloth, and keep it within the scope of the three LBB's:

1. Same as Fighting-man
2. Chance to surprise 3:6, but limited to leather or chain, no shields
3. Able to extract and use poisons from monsters
4. Chaotic alignment only

I like it but I don’t think any class other than fighting-man should get that combat prowess so I’d probably use the cleric instead. I’d probably give it a sneak attack type ability as well.

[hamurai]

Use the Fighting-man, and you could give an assassin a "favoured enemy" sort of bonus for humanoids (+1 damage), as assassins would probably be trained to quickly dispose of them (and not beasts or demons, for example).
Unlike the FM, they'd likely not use (heavy) armor, shields and heavy weapons to be quicker. You could even restrict armor and weapon use, if you wanted to balance the favoured enemy bonus.
I wouldn't limit alignment as there's the possibility that an assassin works for the law, too - hitting crime lords while being on the payroll of the kingdom, even.
And I like the better surprise chance idea.

[foxroe]

Well, that's "if" I were to create such a class; I wouldn't though. To me, within the frame of reference of just the 3 LBB's, the Assassin is more of a specific occupational label (like "Thief"). Any of the three core classes can use their abilities to perform an assassination, just like they can steal things if they so desired.

Anyway, just random lunch-break thoughts.

[sepulchre]

Foxroe wrote:

The Assassin is more of a specific occupational label (like "Thief").

Agreed. It is the tactical considerations and technique of delivering the blade (additional weapon proficiency if using them) that are the mark of an assassin. Light and concealable weapons like those of the thief class and armor, if any, restricted to non-bulky so as to practice stealth should be specific to the trade . The skills of killing efficiently and discretely are something plied as much by a normal man as they could be by a veteran.

[Todd]

Isn’t every class save magic user an occupation?

[Stormcrow]

Think of the word "class" in the taxonomic sense, not the programming sense. "Fighter" is the "class" of all characters whose primary mode of adventuring is martial technique. Within the "class" of all "fighters," there is variation: you have the rank and file, the land-owners and rulers, the champions of law. Within the "class" of all "magic-users," you have witches and warlocks, enchanters, mystics, seers, cunning men and wise women. (Forget about level titles for the moment; I'm using these terms descriptively only.) Not every variation deserves its own subclass; those come up with you've got characters who get "class"ified with others, but who need special rules to cover the extra bits.

So classes are not occupations. Each class suggests multiple possible occupations. Subclasses are narrow enough that they may be occupations, but their presence is up to the whim of the referee. The assassin subclass is obviously an occupation.

[Malchor]

Appreciate the thoughts in this thread so far, but had a slightly different line of questions.

First a summary of what we know:
1. aldarron pointed out, McDuck was a thief in 1972. Very cool, did not know that! 
2. We know Gygax's thief came from the Aero Hobby group via Gary Schweitzer—and these guys reportedly had started with a pre-production edition (though I tend to wonder if it was an official version sent by Gary—but that is another story).
3. ETP (sorry, I keep bringing EPT up on these boards, but it seems to have captured a little bit more of Arneson's style of D&D—or proto-D&D during the playtesting period) had an assassin as a skill ("assassin-spy-tracker" to be specific) even in the 1974 pre-TSR version." Again this was a skill, not a class.

From EPT:

An assassin-spy-tracker can hide in the shadows and pass unseen. This, too, depends upon his Level, and the same table is used as above. Tracking also depends upon this table for its success. The assassin skills will depend partially upon his dexterity (sec. 415), and partially upon his knowledge (e.g. does he also have alchemist skills so that he can recognise [sic] and construct poisons?).

The assassin had to use the alchemist's table for success in brewing their poison. A great addition by Barker, and not to take away from it, that also fits neatly with Arneson's style of magic, with magic users having to practice spells and their spells not always working Alchemist was also mentioned once in a price list in FFC. And in the Blackmoor supplement, under the poison subsection for assassins states, "Details of poison types will be handled in some future supplement when alchemists are fully covered." Sadly, that did not happen in Eldritch Wizardry.

4. FFC assassin seems to be more of an NPC, with only two mentions on tables, and one mention of assassination as a Gypsy Saying.

Here are my questions.
1. Did anyone actually play an assassin or recalls hiring assassins in the Twin City group's games in Blackmoor?
2. Is there any reason to be sure Judges Guild didn't add assassins to FFC just because it was in the Blackmoor supplement? 
3. Do we know who wrote the assassin sub-class in the Blackmoor supplement? We know for certain there was "filler" added to bulk up the page count (e.g., Blume's Monk).
4. I know Gor has been pointed to as the influence for the assassin, but is there any reason to not consider EPT as an equally likely source?
5. Is there any indication of assassins in the earlier Braunstein games? As assassin-spy makes total sense in a Braunstein style game either in a Napoleonic game or a Banana Republic inspired game.


Edit: There is, of course, an assassin NPC in the LBBs in the Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. A mention of price as a specialist, and short description which instructs the referee to "decide what chance there is of his mission being accomplished by noting the precautions taken by the intended victim," and that they are "are not plentiful."


Edit: FFC, not FCC! DOH!

[aldarron]

So I will just briefly tackle two and three. Oh, I'm sure you mean FFC not FCC (Federal Communications Commission)

2) Yes, in fact it rather appears to be the other way around. Without getting into the weeds (I've done that elsewhere), the "Special Interests" section of the FFC is very likely some of the material Arneson wrote for inclusion in Supplement II that Kask cut out.

3.) Monk we know was credited to Blume, No one ever tried to claim credit for the Assassin. Kask also is on record (Dragonsfoot)saying it was Arneson's class, and like all things Arneson, he hated it. He also claims to have created the assasination table himself and to have otherwise substantially rewritten the class. I would be cautious about putting too much weight on the latter claim.

[Malchor]

Oct 10, 2018 7:52:15 GMT -6 aldarron said:

So I will just briefly tackle two and three. Oh, I'm sure you mean FFC not FCC (Federal Communications Commission)

DOH! Fixed. Thanks.

[dicebro]

Jul 8, 2018 10:24:42 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Appreciate the thoughts in this thread so far, but had a slightly different line of questions.
4. FFC assassin seems to be more of an NPC, with only two mentions on tables, and one mention of assassination as a Gypsy Saying.

Here are my questions.
1. Did anyone actually play an assassin or recalls hiring assassins in the Twin City group's games in Blackmoor?
2. Is there any reason to be sure Judges Guild didn't add assassins to FFC just because it was in the Blackmoor supplement? 
3. Do we know who wrote the assassin sub-class in the Blackmoor supplement? We know for certain there was "filler" added to bulk up the page count (e.g., Blume's Monk).
4. I know Gor has been pointed to as the influence for the assassin, but is there any reason to not consider EPT as an equally likely source?
5. Is there any indication of assassins in the earlier Braunstein games? As assassin-spy makes total sense in a Braunstein style game either in a Napoleonic game or a Banana Republic inspired game.


Edit: There is, of course, an assassin NPC in the LBBs in the Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. A mention of price as a specialist, and short description which instructs the referee to "decide what chance there is of his mission being accomplished by noting the precautions taken by the intended victim," and that they are "are not plentiful."

I think that Allan Hammock played the first Assassin. His thief character constructed a deadly trap , or some such thing, and the local assassins guild found out. So they took him in under their wing and made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.