Paladin or Assassin

[Lukafio]

Sorry in my old age I did not see or hear everything ... well at least I read what was worth while.

I posted which I would like to be, but If I had to run in to one, I would prefer it be the paladin.

[Rankhar_Zenthis]

Split topic so as to keep on topic here. Carry on

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

you must bring the nights of NI a.........SHRUBBERY!!! (DUNH DUNH DUNH)

[BryantTheSwordsman]

you spelled knights wrong and what the hell there is more paladins than assassins.

[Rankhar_Zenthis]

Wumbo, please stick to the topic here; if you want to discuss shrubberies, knights who say Ni and other such important things, head to the BMP where you will find the topic He said it!

[Crimson-Kobold]

Byrant, they're in hiding obviously. They don't go toe to toe with Paladins, that's stupid!

[Cole]

yeah I would prefer a Pally too ... then I could rob him I generally play thieves in game.... so swiping this suckers purse would be a laugh.

[SightblinderX]

The OP doesn't state that combat must occur. In the event that we are starting neutral to one another I prefer to meet the Paladin in an encounter, because I'm much more likely to live...just behave until he is gone.

[phindar]

The problem I've seen with the Assassin in game (at least in 3.5) is that its basically a Rogue with Death Attack, and Death Attack sounds scary, and often is to PC's, but it's tough to work that on the big monsters because big monsters almost always have ungodly Fort Saves.

That was ultimately what frustrated the player in my group who had made an Assassin. He had to hide for 3 rounds, doing nothing, all for one roll that had a very small chance of taking a monster off the board. A good rule of thumb is that if the monster is weak enough that you have a decent chance of getting the Death Attack to kill it, you're better off just hitting it for three rounds.

The exception is against casters with abysmal Fort saves, but that tends to be a special circumstance, and it's never a good idea to be a one-trick pony who's trick doesn't come up a lot. (My theory on character design has always been you can be a one-trick pony as long as it's a good trick.) But even if you're fighting a lot of low-Fort opponents, it's still kind of a pain to have to observe, strike, go invisible and then observe some more. At that point, you're basically acting in every fourth round.

Paladins I like, but I have to be in the mood for it, and it has to be a game in which moral choices matter, otherwise I'd rather play a Fighter. (I think that holds true of the Assassin as well, in that it's more fun to play an amoral character in a game where morality matters.) I've played Paladins in games where every scenario was basically presented as, "Do you make the Right choice, or the Wrong one?" and I end up switching my character out for a Barbarian or a Rogue.

[BryantTheSwordsman]

yeah 3.5 assassins weren't that great but the first edition ones were a force not to be reckoned with

[Wizard_of_Wumbo]

i do agree bryant, the assassin in 1st edition kicked ass! but im gonna have to go with paladins.

[SightblinderX]

1E assassins are re-introdiced into 2E via the Scarlet Brotherhood supplement for Greyhawk...as are 1E monks... just a little trivia for ya

[BryantTheSwordsman]

already downloaded hehe