Assassin Class

[zhequan100]

now i know that after becoming assasin people cannot tell wad star i am throwing

[Gerret]

If you want a class that uses long range then why not call it an Archer. Assasins of the middle ages i would think would kill close range than distance. Weapons didn't havea as good consistancy long range back then as they do in our time.

[lingolas]

I agree with Gerret.

range fighters are archers.
quick and silent fighters are assasins.
Survials are rangers

[Zidane]

i agree but why not put it on ranger? they have alot of skill in archerary?

[Gerret]

I got thinking and why not program certain range wepon bonuses to certain clases. Like Rangers getting better at bows. Mages crossbows. Rouges throwing daggers and cross bows. Paladins throwning spears/lances. Warriors i don't know. Psions maybe swords probably not tho.

[lingolas]

I dont like seeing mages holding anything but a staff. please dont give them crossbows.

Rogues can already throw daggers i think.
Also, i also dont want to see a rogue shooting me with anything besides surikans and maybe poison darts from blowguns.

I can see a warrior using bows, but i rather see a ranger using them more.

Psion definitely sword!

[Jorelani]

What's with this need to come up with some arbitrary class? What kinda solution is this supposed to be, eh?

Race. Each tailored to be 'crappy' at some gameplay elements, 'average' for some, 'above average' for a handful, and 'awesome' at a specific few.

All one needs are a few 'fields'. Call them classes, whateverthehell. You really don't need more than 8 to accomplish anything. (That's 16 if you code dual-class, more than enough. 3 classes for a PC is stepping into a whole other world of headaches.)

These fields are then 'specialized'. Investments into certain 'schools' of skills, such as 'ranged weapons', 'healing magics', et cetera. A melee fielded character would have an easier time with melee and related skills than magic related ones.

The PCs can then specialize these skills further with ingame items, i.e. runes/equipment and such.

So why add more to the equation than there needs to be?

This is how far you bring character usefulness. The rest lies on skill and implementation.

Sorry for the rant. It boils down to this:
Creating over a handful of fields/classes isn't going to help anything. It's how you use what ya got. And you don't need much to make it work. :p

[Zidane]

I got thinking and why not program certain range wepon bonuses to certain clases. Like Rangers getting better at bows. Mages crossbows. Rouges throwing daggers and cross bows. Paladins throwning spears/lances. Warriors i don't know. Psions maybe swords probably not tho.

Paladins should have some more skills then just 80% in swords. i mean more skills in other weapons.

[lingolas]

paladins are already good, there's no need to tip the scale

[Zidane]

paladins are already good, there's no need to tip the scale

then other then the classes that dont make sense to high the crossbow or bows. Lets not touch or tip the scale at all.

[Quintos]

So, in short, the whole calling a ranged combat class "Assassin" makes no sense traditional RP wise.

You proved that it does not make sense historically, but, since the lore of the MUD is not tied in with real history, this doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense RP wise.

Also, the name isn't really the important part. The idea is to have a class that fills a new role.

The reason that some people, myself included, are against just giving skills like this to rangers in their current form is that they are hybrid characters. Due to the guidelines set up by the MUD, no hybrid class should have 100% in any weapon skill. They also would have too much power if they were given additional skills. Although you could offset this overpowering advantage by making the skills weaker, making the skills useless would defeat the whole purpose.