Talk:Professional Assassin (5e Background)

Isn't Assassin an archetype of rogue?--209.97.85.48 13:36, 27 February 2016 (MST)

Yes, this is one of those backgrounds that more resembles a class than what-you-did-before-you-had-a-class. Would work better as a "hired thug" or some other ameture variant. Marasmusine (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2016 (MST)

I disagree. I think the word "assassin" is generic enough that you can't make a single archetype or class and proclaim "OK, NOTHING ELSE CAN USE THIS WORD NOW!". It's not like the former "Battle Master" background- that's unusually specific and unique to a fighter class archetype. But, assassins? Anyone who kills specific people for money is an assassin, regardless of how they do it. The assassin archetype is designed to promote a very specific style of rogue which is a recurring theme in many works of fantasy fiction, and in the public imagination. The word "assassin" is the most appropriate word there. Also, Marasmusine, you know we disagree with each other about what backgrounds are. Do we really need to discuss that subject again? --Kydo (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2016 (MST)

I haven't flagged the page for anything nor have I made any changes, I am in fact leaving it alone. I just gave my opinion that I don't like this take on it. Marasmusine (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2016 (MST)

Kydo, I find the name a little confusing.--Redrum 18:42, 9 March 2016 (MST)

Could this background be renamed Reformed Villain? --Redrum 18:47, 25 May 2016 (MDT)

Wouldn't that be covered by the Criminal background? I find that to be more objectionable, because it overlaps other content of the same type, rather than having the same name as content of another type. Why do people get so hung up on what we name things around here? Also, why would the character necessarily be "reformed"? If you were building an NPC assassin enemy with full character stats, rather than using the idiotic monster-style "NPCs", you could use this background for them with ease, and it would be a closer thematic fit than just criminal. Additionally, you could use this material in settings where assassin is a legitimate profession, not a crime. In such a setting, a heroic protagonist could, in fact, be a professional assassin! (They just work for the good guys and kill the bad guys) (Or perhaps there is an entire cultural group of assassins!) None of the core backgrounds specifically state that you have left your old ways behind either- the guild artisan entry even specifies that you may still in fact be an active professional in their employ! --Kydo (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2016 (MDT)

OK, so, according to the overwhelming majority of Redditors, I am wrong. Allowing unofficial content of any kind to have overlapping names with official content is apparently too confusing for people. I guess I should have assumed the world is populated by idiots. In any case, their demand is that we differentiate content by name. They use content names as keywords, like effects in Magic the Gathering. My attitude toward content is completely alien to them. As a concession, this is the first page to be moved to a distinguishing name. I still stand by my previous position however, so don't expect much. --Kydo (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2016 (MDT)

I'm surpised it toke you this long to figure out that AT LEAST half the world is populated by idiots. --Redrum 18:56, 28 September 2016 (MDT)

That doesn't mean we should concede to idiocy. Let the idiot walk under a bus, I say. However, if I'm the person who has to scrape up the mess afterwards, I'll be putting in guardrails so it doesn't happen any more. --Kydo (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2016 (MDT)

Avoiding using the same names as official content, where plausible, doesn't seem like a real stretch. It does meaningfully help differentiation for people, especially from google results. That being said, when we (eventually) implement meaningful difference between SRD and Homebrew pages, it should be far less of an issue. --SgtLion (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2016 (MDT)

I just don't understand how someone could mistake a background for a class archetype, regardless of the name. That's just stupid. I thought that, as long as the content was of a different type, there would be no cause for confusion. --Kydo (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2016 (MDT)

Do I need to remind you that there are idiots (or at least slow-learners) out there? --Redrum 13:36, 1 October 2016 (MDT)

Ninja

Is it possible to use this background as the basis of a ninja background? --Redrum 17:43, 9 November 2016 (MST)

I don't see why not. A professional assassin is pretty much what a ninja is. --Kydo (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2016 (MST)