Again: Assassin's Death Attack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Again: Assassin's Death Attack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Bit_Mace_Lord_of_Crunch
03-23-07, 03:57 PM Yes, I know it has probably been argued over and over again in the past, but I am just adressing this question now: How exactly is the Assassin's Death Attack suppossed to work?

One (actually several) of my players frequently take levels of Assassin from the DMG. I have had to tell them time and time again that you can just talk to someone for three rounds (even with Diplomacy checks to improved they're attitude) and then kill them in one hit. You cannot be detected by them either. But read word-for-word in the book, it says "...as long as the target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy."

And so the argument continues, and we all agreed to find out once and for all from the Wizards Boards. Can anyone please help me out? Thanks in advance.
Tevin Kevlak
03-23-07, 05:11 PM If an assassin is talking to his mark and the mark has no idea that the assassin means him harm and the assassin has a melee attack prepared that will catch the mark flat-footed (like concealing a dagger with the sleight of hand skill) and studies his target for the 3 rounds I see no reason why he should not be allowed to make use of his death attack ability.

Any character with sneak attack would be able to apply their extra damage in this situtation and since the death attack functions off the same principles (basically) I, personally, think it is a valid use of the ability and have not seen any rules that would lead me to believe otherwise.
The_Shaman
03-23-07, 11:33 PM I'd agree with TK. As long as you catch your enemy flat-footed after the 3 rounds, it should be okay.
Bit_Mace_Lord_of_Crunch
03-24-07, 11:13 PM Well thank you very much, both of you. I'm sure my players will like this result, and I personally am just glad to finally have a definitive answer. Again, thank you very much, and happy gaming.
Khael
03-25-07, 08:14 AM However one thing to remember: If while talknig to the target you keep looking at some vital point (the neck, kidneys etc.) I wouldn't be surprised if they count as prepared.

How many people do you know who tend to study your vital points for 18 continuous seconds?
Bit_Mace_Lord_of_Crunch
03-25-07, 12:24 PM This is true, so would it be wrong to require a successful Diplomacy check (and all that goes along with it)/a successful Sleight of Hand check?
Khael
03-25-07, 01:57 PM Sleight of hand for the palming knife, yes. But i'd be more inclined to have opposed spot checks (The assassin spots to study his victim undetected, the victim to notice the fact this guy is looking at his throat in such a way you'd suspect vampirism or viewing a target).
Dark1ord
03-25-07, 03:19 PM well, death attack just says "studies his victim for 3 rounds", not "stares weirdly at the throat"...

as to the precise nature of this "study", I don't know what it's supposed to be. maybe he's reading a manual? :P

maybe they should've included a concentration check somehow.
Khael
03-25-07, 03:28 PM I'd be inclined to think of study as 'studying the victims intended point of death-dealing, i.e. do you go for the throat or kidneys? Spine or heart? It probably differs from person to person which would be fastest hence the studying (From the in-game perspective).

Most others methods of studying to me imply the possiblity of doing something else(i.e. firing a crossbow) but don't sound like 'remaining focused on the targeted victim'.
ClementWillowbreaker
03-26-07, 12:02 AM 1) Remember that they have to win initiative or have some other means to sneak-attack the victim within three rounds- you don't get surprise against someone you have been talking to for three rounds, so no one is flat-footed.

2) It is up the DM to decide what activities are permissible and not distracting while preparing a death attack. Since I haven't DMed a sin for a while, I forget my exact criteria, but in general, you throw out most standard actions, things that can require Concentration checks in certain circumstances, and magic. Lots of overlap, of course, which requires you to be very clear what you mean. While no one has ever asked about conversation, I would also call that distracting.
calronmoonflower
03-26-07, 02:15 AM 1) Remember that they have to win initiative or have some other means to sneak-attack the victim within three rounds- you don't get surprise against someone you have been talking to for three rounds, so no one is flat-footed.

Sure you can as they are not expecting it, so are not aware you are an opponent. Page 137 of the Players Handbook assumes that both parties are hostile from the start, so it doesn't cover this well.

I've personally been sucker punched before and know it is possible to surprise someone you have been talking to.
Khael
03-26-07, 04:50 AM Correct: There is surprised, and surprised.
If someone unexpectedly leaps out of a dark corner and stabs you you would be flat-footed.

If someone talking to you normally just stabs you in the middle of the conversation, you're going to be surprised, again.

After all in neither example were you an opponent/enemy until you attacked. Simply having them be unaware of you is not the only way to not be perceived an an enemy.
AQuebman
03-26-07, 09:49 AM I personally as a DM would require Diplomacy checks to keep the person distracted i.e. you are sitting there discussing something, making friendly with them etc... Then I would require a sleight of hand check to conceal whatever weapon it is you will be using. This could only be avoided I believe by the feat that lets rogue like characters draw and strike with a sneak attack. It's listed in Complete Adventurer I believe but otherwise Sleight of Hand is the only way to conceal that weapon.
Critalondel
03-26-07, 10:07 AM I personally as a DM would require Diplomacy checks to keep the person distracted i.e. you are sitting there discussing something, making friendly with them etc... Then I would require a sleight of hand check to conceal whatever weapon it is you will be using. This could only be avoided I believe by the feat that lets rogue like characters draw and strike with a sneak attack. It's listed in Complete Adventurer I believe but otherwise Sleight of Hand is the only way to conceal that weapon.
I'd say Diplomacy or Bluff.
Corpsekin
03-26-07, 03:26 PM you say people would notice if an assasin watched their vital points durring a conversation, isnt the eye an vital point? i don't think someone would notice if they were being stared in the eyes durring a conversation
johniemi
03-26-07, 03:57 PM How about a sense motive check for the target, opposed by the assasin's bluff check?
AQuebman
03-26-07, 07:55 PM I mentioned this point with a player of mine and he believed the act of making the assassin make a diplomacy/bluff check would be too much. All they should need is a spot for the Sleight of Hand according to the heated debate me and him got into. I don't know how to describe it but I feel a bluff or diplomacy check is required for a conversation while cupping a sleight of handed dagger ready to kill them.
ClementWillowbreaker
03-26-07, 08:06 PM If someone unexpectedly leaps out of a dark corner and stabs you you would be flat-footed.
If someone talking to you normally just stabs you in the middle of the conversation, you're going to be surprised, again.
Exactly. In the first one you get the surprise round. In the second you are assuming you suck and don't win initiative against the person trying to sucker-punch you. The former always leaves you flat-footed for an attack. The latter can, but you can sometimes react faster.

Find me a DM that will say that a PC has absolutely no chance of reacting to someone standing in broad daylight in the middle of a field charging from 30ft away and hacking at them, screaming at the top of their lungs (also fits in a surprise round). If you think you can get surprise rounds by just standing in front of someone, you don't really know how DnD encounters begin.
Khael
03-27-07, 04:12 AM Exactly. In the first one you get the surprise round. In the second you are assuming you suck and don't win initiative against the person trying to sucker-punch you. The former always leaves you flat-footed for an attack. The latter can, but you can sometimes react faster.

Find me a DM that will say that a PC has absolutely no chance of reacting to someone standing in broad daylight in the middle of a field charging from 30ft away and hacking at them, screaming at the top of their lungs (also fits in a surprise round). If you think you can get surprise rounds by just standing in front of someone, you don't really know how DnD encounters begin.

But this is still missing some of the point. The first one is obvious as we all know, the second one, is based on Dm choice only and more rolling.
However no-one is saying you'll be flat-footed to a charging maniac. To a man who talks friendly to you (diplomacy), but is really setting you up for a stabbing (opposed spot and slieght of hand checks), if he fails either of those three possibly not flat-footed, definitely not if he fails the last two.
If he passes? Flat-footed stabbing occurs.

As to distracting, it is very easy to hold such a conversation. The only problem is to work best it involves talking for a few mniutes, before hoping they(the victim) starts rambling. Perfect time to study and strike, when you remember all it takes is 18 seconds of rambling.
LittleCarp04
03-27-07, 12:45 PM 1) Remember that they have to win initiative or have some other means to sneak-attack the victim within three rounds- you don't get surprise against someone you have been talking to for three rounds, so no one is flat-footed.

Exactly. In the first one you get the surprise round. In the second you are assuming you suck and don't win initiative against the person trying to sucker-punch you. The former always leaves you flat-footed for an attack. The latter can, but you can sometimes react faster.

Problem i see with your line of thinking is that when you are at a banquet or a ball, that you are isntantly on your guard. I ran a Assassin NPC that could alter form at will, and hence look like anyone they wanted to, and he would usually go to balls and such to kill his targets, and since he would just be casually talking to them, then stab them in the lungs, they had no chance of being on their guard, another good thing for assassins are gloves of holding, since its a swift action to get the weapon, it means no having to worry about SoH.
AQuebman
03-28-07, 08:20 AM My argument is this, and it's what I told one of my players when we got into it. If your watching a dude your sitting next to in a bar, then theres a good chance you don't need diplomacy unless your like intimately talking with them. If you are one on one with any single person or group then that is when I think a charisma check along with a sleight of hand check or the ability of some magic item to throw them off guard. The former being the easier of the 2 kills to pull off I think you have to do that to make it fair to the NPC's, other PC's and the overall power of an assassin. An assassin who sucks at charisma type abilities should pay attention from a distance and strike when they get the chance.
Varjohaltia
04-15-07, 12:51 PM Are your party members evil aligned? The requirement for assassin is evil alignment and a killing for the sole purpose of joining the assassins. That sounds pretty limiting to me, but then again I may be a wuss and just like parties that range from neutral to good.
Khael
04-15-07, 01:22 PM Some DMs are known to remove the assassin's evil prereq, as its not really a necessary thing (Unless you count adventurers, people who go round killing off whole groups of beings regularly for money and items, as needing to be evil.)

In short, since the actual point of an assassin is not limited to evil, some DM go with this so the assassin PrC needs not be evil.
TheDarkPrince
04-15-07, 05:00 PM Or go with the Avenger variant. It is any non-chaotic (I think), and is otherwise identical to the assassin.

As to the death attack, just change it so that instead of studying the victom for three rounds make it a single action attack, whenever the victom is denied a dex bonus. Just lower the DC or say it is a full round action, or both, to balance it.

Cheers. :D
alien_valentine
04-18-07, 03:16 PM I've both played assasins in campaigns and DM'd campaigns with assasin PC's, so I've been on both sides of this argument. If the target has no reason to suspect your murderous intentions, then cutting the conversation short by cutting out their voicebox is entirely feasible. A little off topic but, "The DM determines who is aware of who at the start of a battle. He may call for Listen checks, Spot checks, or other checks to see how aware the adventurers are of their opponents." So if the opposed Sleight of Hand/Spot check to see the palmed dagger, or in my opinion an opposed Sense Motive/Bluff check, depending upon how the conversation is flowing, would really make or break the entire thing. If the target NPC won either of the opposed checks before the 3 rounds of study were up, then initiative is rolled and you go from there. If the assassin wins the opposed check, you can probably kiss that NPC goodbye.
BrutishCelt
04-19-07, 02:40 PM I think that this instance is one where adhering to the spirit of the game rather than the letter of the rules is what one should lean towards. The text indicates that an assassin need only study the target for the three rounds before attempting the attack, and that the target must be unaware of the threat that the assassin poses.

As a DM, I would reason that in a non-combat situation [i.e. ball, barroom conversation, tea party], good roleplaying on the part of the assassin should obviate the need for any opposed checks. Bad roleplaying, or for the sake of swiftness, the assassin might make either a single bluff or diplomacy check to keep the mark unaware for the three rounds. This check would be opposed by the mark's sense motive, and modified by any mitigating circumstances. DMs that want to encourage more roleplaying on the part of their players may require the assassin to succeed on three consecutive checks for the non-RP option.

Oh, and slightly off topic, but does anyone recall where the non-evil assassin variant is located? My swashbuckler/rogue might need a new profession . . .
calronmoonflower
04-20-07, 01:54 AM Oh, and slightly off topic, but does anyone recall where the non-evil assassin variant is located? My swashbuckler/rogue might need a new profession . . .

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bit_Mace_Lord_of_Crunch 03-23-07, 03:57 PM	Yes, I know it has probably been argued over and over again in the past, but I am just adressing this question now: How exactly is the Assassin's Death Attack suppossed to work? One (actually several) of my players frequently take levels of Assassin from the DMG. I have had to tell them time and time again that you can just talk to someone for three rounds (even with Diplomacy checks to improved they're attitude) and then kill them in one hit. You cannot be detected by them either. But read word-for-word in the book, it says "...as long as the target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy." And so the argument continues, and we all agreed to find out once and for all from the Wizards Boards. Can anyone please help me out? Thanks in advance.
Tevin Kevlak 03-23-07, 05:11 PM	If an assassin is talking to his mark and the mark has no idea that the assassin means him harm and the assassin has a melee attack prepared that will catch the mark flat-footed (like concealing a dagger with the sleight of hand skill) and studies his target for the 3 rounds I see no reason why he should not be allowed to make use of his death attack ability. Any character with sneak attack would be able to apply their extra damage in this situtation and since the death attack functions off the same principles (basically) I, personally, think it is a valid use of the ability and have not seen any rules that would lead me to believe otherwise.
The_Shaman 03-23-07, 11:33 PM	I'd agree with TK. As long as you catch your enemy flat-footed after the 3 rounds, it should be okay.
Bit_Mace_Lord_of_Crunch 03-24-07, 11:13 PM	Well thank you very much, both of you. I'm sure my players will like this result, and I personally am just glad to finally have a definitive answer. Again, thank you very much, and happy gaming.
Khael 03-25-07, 08:14 AM	However one thing to remember: If while talknig to the target you keep looking at some vital point (the neck, kidneys etc.) I wouldn't be surprised if they count as prepared. How many people do you know who tend to study your vital points for 18 continuous seconds?
Bit_Mace_Lord_of_Crunch 03-25-07, 12:24 PM	This is true, so would it be wrong to require a successful Diplomacy check (and all that goes along with it)/a successful Sleight of Hand check?
Khael 03-25-07, 01:57 PM	Sleight of hand for the palming knife, yes. But i'd be more inclined to have opposed spot checks (The assassin spots to study his victim undetected, the victim to notice the fact this guy is looking at his throat in such a way you'd suspect vampirism or viewing a target).
Dark1ord 03-25-07, 03:19 PM	well, death attack just says "studies his victim for 3 rounds", not "stares weirdly at the throat"... as to the precise nature of this "study", I don't know what it's supposed to be. maybe he's reading a manual? :P maybe they should've included a concentration check somehow.
Khael 03-25-07, 03:28 PM	I'd be inclined to think of study as 'studying the victims intended point of death-dealing, i.e. do you go for the throat or kidneys? Spine or heart? It probably differs from person to person which would be fastest hence the studying (From the in-game perspective). Most others methods of studying to me imply the possiblity of doing something else(i.e. firing a crossbow) but don't sound like 'remaining focused on the targeted victim'.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-26-07, 12:02 AM	1) Remember that they have to win initiative or have some other means to sneak-attack the victim within three rounds- you don't get surprise against someone you have been talking to for three rounds, so no one is flat-footed. 2) It is up the DM to decide what activities are permissible and not distracting while preparing a death attack. Since I haven't DMed a sin for a while, I forget my exact criteria, but in general, you throw out most standard actions, things that can require Concentration checks in certain circumstances, and magic. Lots of overlap, of course, which requires you to be very clear what you mean. While no one has ever asked about conversation, I would also call that distracting.
calronmoonflower 03-26-07, 02:15 AM	1) Remember that they have to win initiative or have some other means to sneak-attack the victim within three rounds- you don't get surprise against someone you have been talking to for three rounds, so no one is flat-footed. Sure you can as they are not expecting it, so are not aware you are an opponent. Page 137 of the Players Handbook assumes that both parties are hostile from the start, so it doesn't cover this well. I've personally been sucker punched before and know it is possible to surprise someone you have been talking to.
Khael 03-26-07, 04:50 AM	Correct: There is surprised, and surprised. If someone unexpectedly leaps out of a dark corner and stabs you you would be flat-footed. If someone talking to you normally just stabs you in the middle of the conversation, you're going to be surprised, again. After all in neither example were you an opponent/enemy until you attacked. Simply having them be unaware of you is not the only way to not be perceived an an enemy.
AQuebman 03-26-07, 09:49 AM	I personally as a DM would require Diplomacy checks to keep the person distracted i.e. you are sitting there discussing something, making friendly with them etc... Then I would require a sleight of hand check to conceal whatever weapon it is you will be using. This could only be avoided I believe by the feat that lets rogue like characters draw and strike with a sneak attack. It's listed in Complete Adventurer I believe but otherwise Sleight of Hand is the only way to conceal that weapon.
Critalondel 03-26-07, 10:07 AM	I personally as a DM would require Diplomacy checks to keep the person distracted i.e. you are sitting there discussing something, making friendly with them etc... Then I would require a sleight of hand check to conceal whatever weapon it is you will be using. This could only be avoided I believe by the feat that lets rogue like characters draw and strike with a sneak attack. It's listed in Complete Adventurer I believe but otherwise Sleight of Hand is the only way to conceal that weapon. I'd say Diplomacy or Bluff.
Corpsekin 03-26-07, 03:26 PM	you say people would notice if an assasin watched their vital points durring a conversation, isnt the eye an vital point? i don't think someone would notice if they were being stared in the eyes durring a conversation
johniemi 03-26-07, 03:57 PM	How about a sense motive check for the target, opposed by the assasin's bluff check?
AQuebman 03-26-07, 07:55 PM	I mentioned this point with a player of mine and he believed the act of making the assassin make a diplomacy/bluff check would be too much. All they should need is a spot for the Sleight of Hand according to the heated debate me and him got into. I don't know how to describe it but I feel a bluff or diplomacy check is required for a conversation while cupping a sleight of handed dagger ready to kill them.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-26-07, 08:06 PM	If someone unexpectedly leaps out of a dark corner and stabs you you would be flat-footed. If someone talking to you normally just stabs you in the middle of the conversation, you're going to be surprised, again. Exactly. In the first one you get the surprise round. In the second you are assuming you suck and don't win initiative against the person trying to sucker-punch you. The former always leaves you flat-footed for an attack. The latter can, but you can sometimes react faster. Find me a DM that will say that a PC has absolutely no chance of reacting to someone standing in broad daylight in the middle of a field charging from 30ft away and hacking at them, screaming at the top of their lungs (also fits in a surprise round). If you think you can get surprise rounds by just standing in front of someone, you don't really know how DnD encounters begin.
Khael 03-27-07, 04:12 AM	Exactly. In the first one you get the surprise round. In the second you are assuming you suck and don't win initiative against the person trying to sucker-punch you. The former always leaves you flat-footed for an attack. The latter can, but you can sometimes react faster. Find me a DM that will say that a PC has absolutely no chance of reacting to someone standing in broad daylight in the middle of a field charging from 30ft away and hacking at them, screaming at the top of their lungs (also fits in a surprise round). If you think you can get surprise rounds by just standing in front of someone, you don't really know how DnD encounters begin. But this is still missing some of the point. The first one is obvious as we all know, the second one, is based on Dm choice only and more rolling. However no-one is saying you'll be flat-footed to a charging maniac. To a man who talks friendly to you (diplomacy), but is really setting you up for a stabbing (opposed spot and slieght of hand checks), if he fails either of those three possibly not flat-footed, definitely not if he fails the last two. If he passes? Flat-footed stabbing occurs. As to distracting, it is very easy to hold such a conversation. The only problem is to work best it involves talking for a few mniutes, before hoping they(the victim) starts rambling. Perfect time to study and strike, when you remember all it takes is 18 seconds of rambling.
LittleCarp04 03-27-07, 12:45 PM	1) Remember that they have to win initiative or have some other means to sneak-attack the victim within three rounds- you don't get surprise against someone you have been talking to for three rounds, so no one is flat-footed. Exactly. In the first one you get the surprise round. In the second you are assuming you suck and don't win initiative against the person trying to sucker-punch you. The former always leaves you flat-footed for an attack. The latter can, but you can sometimes react faster. Problem i see with your line of thinking is that when you are at a banquet or a ball, that you are isntantly on your guard. I ran a Assassin NPC that could alter form at will, and hence look like anyone they wanted to, and he would usually go to balls and such to kill his targets, and since he would just be casually talking to them, then stab them in the lungs, they had no chance of being on their guard, another good thing for assassins are gloves of holding, since its a swift action to get the weapon, it means no having to worry about SoH.
AQuebman 03-28-07, 08:20 AM	My argument is this, and it's what I told one of my players when we got into it. If your watching a dude your sitting next to in a bar, then theres a good chance you don't need diplomacy unless your like intimately talking with them. If you are one on one with any single person or group then that is when I think a charisma check along with a sleight of hand check or the ability of some magic item to throw them off guard. The former being the easier of the 2 kills to pull off I think you have to do that to make it fair to the NPC's, other PC's and the overall power of an assassin. An assassin who sucks at charisma type abilities should pay attention from a distance and strike when they get the chance.
Varjohaltia 04-15-07, 12:51 PM	Are your party members evil aligned? The requirement for assassin is evil alignment and a killing for the sole purpose of joining the assassins. That sounds pretty limiting to me, but then again I may be a wuss and just like parties that range from neutral to good.
Khael 04-15-07, 01:22 PM	Some DMs are known to remove the assassin's evil prereq, as its not really a necessary thing (Unless you count adventurers, people who go round killing off whole groups of beings regularly for money and items, as needing to be evil.) In short, since the actual point of an assassin is not limited to evil, some DM go with this so the assassin PrC needs not be evil.
TheDarkPrince 04-15-07, 05:00 PM	Or go with the Avenger variant. It is any non-chaotic (I think), and is otherwise identical to the assassin. As to the death attack, just change it so that instead of studying the victom for three rounds make it a single action attack, whenever the victom is denied a dex bonus. Just lower the DC or say it is a full round action, or both, to balance it. Cheers. :D
alien_valentine 04-18-07, 03:16 PM	I've both played assasins in campaigns and DM'd campaigns with assasin PC's, so I've been on both sides of this argument. If the target has no reason to suspect your murderous intentions, then cutting the conversation short by cutting out their voicebox is entirely feasible. A little off topic but, "The DM determines who is aware of who at the start of a battle. He may call for Listen checks, Spot checks, or other checks to see how aware the adventurers are of their opponents." So if the opposed Sleight of Hand/Spot check to see the palmed dagger, or in my opinion an opposed Sense Motive/Bluff check, depending upon how the conversation is flowing, would really make or break the entire thing. If the target NPC won either of the opposed checks before the 3 rounds of study were up, then initiative is rolled and you go from there. If the assassin wins the opposed check, you can probably kiss that NPC goodbye.
BrutishCelt 04-19-07, 02:40 PM	I think that this instance is one where adhering to the spirit of the game rather than the letter of the rules is what one should lean towards. The text indicates that an assassin need only study the target for the three rounds before attempting the attack, and that the target must be unaware of the threat that the assassin poses. As a DM, I would reason that in a non-combat situation [i.e. ball, barroom conversation, tea party], good roleplaying on the part of the assassin should obviate the need for any opposed checks. Bad roleplaying, or for the sake of swiftness, the assassin might make either a single bluff or diplomacy check to keep the mark unaware for the three rounds. This check would be opposed by the mark's sense motive, and modified by any mitigating circumstances. DMs that want to encourage more roleplaying on the part of their players may require the assassin to succeed on three consecutive checks for the non-RP option. Oh, and slightly off topic, but does anyone recall where the non-evil assassin variant is located? My swashbuckler/rogue might need a new profession . . .
calronmoonflower 04-20-07, 01:54 AM	Oh, and slightly off topic, but does anyone recall where the non-evil assassin variant is located? My swashbuckler/rogue might need a new profession . . . http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a