RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Another one I thought of:
Finish the Job (Ex) - When an Assassin successfully hits with a Death Attack but does not succeed in killing the victim, for the next 3 rounds all attacks the Assassin makes against the victim are treated as Sneak Attacks, even if the target has concealment, is not flat-footed, or is not within 30 feet. If the target is immune to the Death Attack or not subject to Sneak Attack damage by means of it's creature type or a magical effect, then it retains this immunity.
|
The biggest issue I'm having is how to resolve the Bestow the Mark ability so that it won't just be used on allies so that the Assassin is constantly benefitting from several class abilities even though he has no intention of killing the target. Hmmm...
Perhaps, if the target is not killed within the time alloted by the Bestow the Mark ability, the Assassin gains a negative level until he successfully slays a marked target? That might be harsh, and it would force the Assassin to be extremely careful about who he marks...
"Wait, that guy has 24 HD?!? Uhhh... maybe this was a bad mark. Crap, I better kill someone else... how about that shopkeeper?"
Bleh. I'll figure something out... or someone will shoot the entire idea full of holes. It sounded so cool when I first thought of it!
i like the idea of killing someone withing 24 hours or earning a negative level until they 'atone' (kill the mark, no someon else, that who they mark), preferably i would link it with a contract, but they can decide to abandone the contract within 5 minutes of taking doing the 'Bestow the Mark' that way if someone is too powerful for them, they can abandon the job... why one day? lets them investigate their target first, get intel, and prepare... then when they are ready to go for it... they can 'Bestow the Mark' that way they will be ready for the kill and don't abuse the ability
its not harsh... its fair... if they pretend to abuse it, make them pay... an assassin must be smart... lousy assassins die young.
The assassin's attack could be similar to the arcane archer's death attack. It (or both) would just need modification to keep the target from coming back which I am in favor of. The game has been missing stay dead mechanisms for as long as I can remember. In fact I really wouldn't have any objection to getting rid of all means of returning characters to life. You're character dies, you roll up a new one.
Another one I thought of:
Finish the Job (Ex) - When an Assassin successfully hits with a Death Attack but does not succeed in killing the victim, for the next 3 rounds all attacks the Assassin makes against the victim are treated as Sneak Attacks, even if the target has concealment, is not flat-footed, or is not within 30 feet. If the target is immune to the Death Attack or not subject to Sneak Attack damage by means of it's creature type or a magical effect, then it retains this immunity.
This I like.
The more I think about it, the stronger I feel that I'd prefer a completely non-magical assassin. I'm fine with an assassin using magical equipment, or even scrolls/wands using UMD, but their class abilities should be be extraordinary. I think that the role of a magical assassin is already filled by the Red Mantis Assassin, and having two provided less options.Problem with that is what if you want a magical assassin that is not a red Mantis?
If you see that as a problem this is the time to make another thread about assassins to see if you can change Paizo's collective minds, they made the assassin non magical in the first place after all. As it is I'm contemplating making a thread asking why the assassin Prc was even kept. Given the reasons the hierophant, archmage, etc weren't kept and that spells were stripped from the Assassin PrC and the 20th level rogue ability is a better death attack - just take the "specials" that assassins get and make them rogue talents/advanced talents with prereq's of evil and maybe character level to make sure they can only be taken at the same approximate level that the PrC would have gotten them (also allowing for multiclassing and not having just rogue levels). A 20th level rogue with assassin talents would be able to pull off 2 Death attacks on a target (study for 3 rounds, it fails they blow the rogue special to try and finish the target off). An assassin is a title after all, just like the other PrC's that were dropped, even more so an assassin could come from any other class and be just as effective, maybe more effective in some ways. Roll it into Rogue and free up 1.25 pages in the final book (using .5 of a page to detail the assasin specials added into the roque write up). Sorry, tangential rant.
I on the otherhand dislike it immensely, given that it is negating/rewriting game rules, and I would prefer to see 'exception based design' remain a feature of systems other than 3.5/Pathfinder. I'm sure it would be possible to come up with a suggestion based around pre-existing conditions such as stunned and circumstance bonuses to listen/spot checks if this were to be taken anywhere.This I like.Another one I thought of:
Finish the Job (Ex) - When an Assassin successfully hits with a Death Attack but does not succeed in killing the victim, for the next 3 rounds all attacks the Assassin makes against the victim are treated as Sneak Attacks, even if the target has concealment, is not flat-footed, or is not within 30 feet. If the target is immune to the Death Attack or not subject to Sneak Attack damage by means of it's creature type or a magical effect, then it retains this immunity.
I'm with Charles on this, a class ability should be better than a feat, not better than multiple feats could be. Now that SA is pretty much a sure thing with flank and works on more creatures than not, there is no reason to make it an absolute. Maybe extend the range to 60' (I believe there are feats and other other class abilities that have already done this so there is a precedent) and/or the target is considered flat footed for a round allowing the assassin to try and finish the job in a more messy fashion instead of the clean one hit. If a target were to be made stunned automatically for any consistant significant time the fight is already over at that point. Also auto ignoring concealment is probably a no-no as well.
|
|
I'm sure it would be possible (if the proposed sneak attack at more than 30ft range were removed) to develop the proposed 'finish the job' using pre-existing conditions such as stunned and circumstance bonuses to listen/spot checks.
The idea of allowing an Assassin to stun a foe, and therefore possibly gain yet another Sneak Attack opportunity, is an interesting one.
Unlike a traditional Rogue in an adventuring party, an Assassin should just about *never* have a flanking opportunity, so a mechanic that allows them to render a target off-balance / stunned / nauseated whatever so that they can get that Sneak Attack damage in while working solo would make some sense.
Even some sort of Supreme Feint type power that allows them to juggle blades around, or get a Sneak Attack with a previously concealed boot knife or other concealed weapon from an unexpected direction (while waving their short sword around to draw the target's defensive attention to the visible threat, and leave him open to the boot-knife or retractable bracer-blade in the off hand or whatever) could be an option.
The idea of allowing an Assassin to stun a foe, and therefore possibly gain yet another Sneak Attack opportunity, is an interesting one.
Stunning is very powerful, just look at the proposed combat feats. The earliest it is available is 17th level and requires 2 feats to get. Also stunning not only gives you bonuses it also gives everyone else in your party the same as well as disarming your target. Flat-footed and/or some lesser status effect would probably be better balanced.
Unlike a traditional Rogue in an adventuring party, an Assassin should just about *never* have a flanking opportunity, so a mechanic that allows them to render a target off-balance / stunned / nauseated whatever so that they can get that Sneak Attack damage in while working solo would make some sense.
We are also talking about a group game, not the solo assassin in a novel/book story. How often do a character and DM wander off for prolonged periods of time leaving the rest of the party to do nothing for hours while there is an assasination occuring in your group? It is also an evil PrC so chances are the rest of the group will be similarly aligned and assisting in said escapade. If you run lots of solo side quests with your DM that is good, but in our group wandering off alone or even splitting the party is usually a really really bad idea.
Even some sort of Supreme Feint type power that allows them to juggle blades around, or get a Sneak Attack with a previously concealed boot knife or other concealed weapon from an unexpected direction (while waving their short sword around to draw the target's defensive attention to the visible threat, and leave him open to the boot-knife or retractable bracer-blade in the off hand or whatever) could be an option.
There is something like that in skills already (feint) and further expanded upon in the feats that were put out for us to use:
Greater Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at making enemies overreact to your maneuvers.
Prerequisites: Improved Feint, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack, if that attack does not come before your next turn.
Normal: Creatures you feint lose their Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
I guess they could drop the poison save and give a feat or two, but I don't see assassins as being flashy or eye catching and would rather it be left to the individual character to make those choices.
Also don't forget that if the target is standing after your death attack, YOU FAILED to insta kill/paralyze the target. I don't see how making the target so debilitated that he/she is going to die fits. Either way you look at it, the target gets penalized for succeeding or you get a bonus for failing, it just doesn't make sense. "Stunned for X>0 rounds after the death attack fails" is too much. "Target is flat footed for X number of rounds after death attack fails" AKA Target wandering about unable to defend himself properly after realizing his/her life was almost ended 2 seconds ago seems to be much more in line. You are still able to use your SA against the target and the target is easier prey for your party mates (1 of which in all likelyhood has SA as well - given evil and assassination attempt). Even staggered might be a good one, leaving the target reeling and either trying to move away (move) or fight back (stnd).
We are also talking about a group game, not the solo assassin in a novel/book story.
There could be an NPC solo assassin up against the PCs.
There could be an NPC solo assassin up against the PCs.
True, but as an NPC the DM can cook up whatever is required for the adventure to progress on to the next hook/plot/etc. There are a wide range of poisons and magic spells out there that an assassin can use (UMD). Poisons have been prohibitively expensive (with good reason in most cases) in our gaming groups experience, but a scroll of an effective low level spell (color spray, web, etc) is quite feasible and in character/theme for the assassin if money is an object for the npc.
Example in a low/mid level-ish encounter:
Cloaked figure jumps out and hits Fred the PC. Fred makes a Fortitude save and isn't killed. DM says make another Fortitude save and Fred fails and falls unconscious (75 gp poison on weapon).
VS
Cloaked figure jumps out and hits Fred the PC. Fred makes a fortitude save and isn't killed. DM says make a Will save and Fred fails and is stunned and possibly something else (Spell Storing weapon with a Color Spray spell that cost more because it has a higher DC - Heightened 3rd level spell).
The PC's don't even have to know what is happening, it could all be made up. DM has Rule 0 and will enforce it if it helps to move the game along regardless of the classes abilities. If the DM makes the littlest attempt to make it plausible the PC's won't even think to challenge it.
I would like to see a non-magical Assassin ability to prevent resurrection. Perhaps the Assassin hides a small shard near the heart (or some other vital organ), so that immediately if it starts beating again, the person dies, thus effectively preventing resurrection. Circumventing this method would require finding the shard(s) by the resurrector and this could be made very difficult indeed.That would require a Heal check to fix, I think. Which would be rather similar to a Caster Level Check for practical purposes.
Both solutions are good.
Yes, a Heal check would be appropriate. It could be made pretty difficult to make - the Assassin would probably make a Sleight of Hand* check to hide the shard (or if he has no object at hand, perhaps he could tie a crucial artery - basically do something that resurrection does not automatically undo). He would, however, get his Assassin class level as a bonus to the check and could take 10 or even 20 if he had sufficient time to do so, which would make it almost impossible to raise victims killed by a high-level Assassin.
*A Heal check might be thematically more appropriate for this too, but we don't want to penalize the Assassin for doing what he does best and we can expect most Assassins to have the Sleight of Hand skill, but not the Heal skill. I suppose we could replace the skill check with a generic check entirely if we wanted to, but I think Sleight of Hand fits this reasonably well.
Since the Heal skill suffers from a lack of usefulness, this idea is a win on multiple fronts.
|
Here's the deal: I'm totally against this whole mechanic of "Making Sure The King Stays Dead" for reasons already stated more eloquently by others than myself. But if Jason has already decided that this is the way of things, then who am I to rail against what will be? Therefore, I present to you all this idea:
Slayer's Mark (Su)
When the assassin uses his Death Attack to kill someone, the violence of the moment leaves an indelible stain on the mark's soul that prevents them from being brought back from the dead. (Insert suitable scaling mechanic here, as I've never been good at coming up with appropriate scaling and from what I've already seen you guys already have, like Ross Byers for his 'And Stay Dead' suggestion).
You can also make it so that the target cannot be communicated with in the afterlife as well. Heck, you could also have it so that the only way to remove the Slayer's Mark is take out the assassin if you wanted to, but I leave any further discussion on what to do with it to you guys.
Have fun.
No matter what form this ability takes, it should not be more powerful than the 9th level soul bind spell. It can make it much more difficult to bring a character back, but it should not make it impossible (if it wasn't already). Whatever blocks resurrection should have a remedy.
|
|
Wow, there are some great ideas in here everybody.
Here is what I am currently thinking about:
An ability that prevents raise dead at low levels, and scales up to prevent up to Resurrection (but True Res will always work). In addition, this ability could prevent Speak with Dead at a certain level.
I am also thinking that an Assassin should be able to trap the soul at 10th level, but they can never have more than one soul in this way... meaning that if they take another, they have to let the previous one go. Could make for some fun RP opportunities.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I am sure the following will be thoroughly hated, but it should be said:
This is approaching the problem from the wrong direction, and going through excessive efforts to kludge a band-aid onto a system that should be revised from the ground up.
First and foremost in that revision should be the concept that heroes do not die. Seriously. The theme of Pathfinder is based on pulps, right? Well, other than the movie, I do not recall Conan ever dying. John Carter sort of died, but that was just so he could switch to a body on Barsoom. At best you get Elric dying, but then those books were about the sword anyway, and it came out fine.
With heroes not dying, you no longer need "ordinary" spells to bring them back. Without those ordinary spells, you do not have to worry about bringing the king, or whoever else, back from the dead either. You can keep some dramatic quest effect around if you feel the need, and the same can apply to any heroes in case of emergency, but overall you can just dump the entire structure for raising the dead, and move along to the issue it creates.
With heroes not dying and nobody casually coming back from the dead, what you need is some way to insta-gack supporting cast for dramatic effect. The simplest, though not the most elegant without significant flavor text support, is to just make it clear that PCs are PCs and NPCs are NPCs, and that N = red + shirt as well as Velocity of Hit Points towards Death = Speed of Plot * (Cool Factor + Player Interest). Just as a Conan story was never about Thoth Amon or whoever else he was punking that page, a D&D game (setting/campaign/adventure path/module/side trek) is never about any villain, no matter how extensive his write up, but about the PCs.
Ultimately, an assassin should appear in adventures to kill NPCs and be killed, not to kill PCs. Whatever fluff or guidelines for DMs needed to reflect is what is needed, not a fancy way to create a perma-kill effect so PCs cannot evade failure to stop an assassin, or DMs can kill a PC they want out of their game forever for some reason.
As for whether killing PCs, casually or otherwise, is a "part of the game" required for backward compatability or "tradition" or whatever, that may be. What it is not is part of the genre. That means whatever reasons there may be for keeping it, there is a significantly better reason to get rid of it.
Wow, there are some great ideas in here everybody.
Here is what I am currently thinking about:
An ability that prevents raise dead at low levels, and scales up to prevent up to Resurrection (but True Res will always work). In addition, this ability could prevent Speak with Dead at a certain level.
I am also thinking that an Assassin should be able to trap the soul at 10th level, but they can never have more than one soul in this way... meaning that if they take another, they have to let the previous one go. Could make for some fun RP opportunities.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingI am sure the following will be thoroughly hated, but it should be said:
This is approaching the problem from the wrong direction, and going through excessive efforts to kludge a band-aid onto a system that should be revised from the ground up.
First and foremost in that revision should be the concept that heroes do not die. Seriously. The theme of Pathfinder is based on pulps, right? Well, other than the movie, I do not recall Conan ever dying. John Carter sort of died, but that was just so he could switch to a body on Barsoom. At best you get Elric dying, but then those books were about the sword anyway, and it came out fine.
With heroes not dying, you no longer need "ordinary" spells to bring them back. Without those ordinary spells, you do not have to worry about bringing the king, or whoever else, back from the dead either. You can keep some dramatic quest effect around if you feel the need, and the same can apply to any heroes in case of emergency, but overall you can just dump the entire structure for raising the dead, and move along to the issue it creates.
With heroes not dying and nobody casually coming back from the dead, what you need is some way to insta-gack supporting cast for dramatic effect. The simplest, though not the most elegant without significant flavor text support, is to just make it clear that PCs are PCs and NPCs are NPCs,...
So are you asking for a deathless PC template? A dead at 0 HP NPC rule?
I'm glad to see that Jason is going for the role-playing opportunities here and not PC permakill. I really like the ideas in this thread, for what it's worth. I'm probably missing the point of your post, but it's kind of hard to tell exactly what you're asking for.
I like the trap the soul idea. I think I'd prefer to see whatever blocks resurrection be something for which there is at least a possible remedy, to allow RP opportunities before the players have access to true resurrection. As the stay dead ability scales, so could the RP opportunities it provides.
|
|
This is approaching the problem from the wrong direction, and going through excessive efforts to kludge a band-aid onto a system that should be revised from the ground up.
First and foremost in that revision should be the concept that heroes do not die. Seriously.
While an interesting posit, it's purely a setting choice. If the players are ready for a grim and gritty campaign, which, all Dark Suns-esque, includes multiple characters ready to replace any who fall, that's also a valid assumption.
*If* we want to make ressurection primarily a magical effect that brings adventurers back, but doesn't affect the rich merchant or ousted king, then raise dead / ressurection magic could simply be *massively* modified, so that any spells that a class could traditionally cast require the priest to be there *at the time of death,* with limitations like 'must be cast within 1 round / level' or something.
Longer term 'plot' ressurections (stop the evil cult from raising the Slithering Despot!) can be handled as McGuffin plot-device rituals or as Incantations (from Unearthed Arcana) that require the stars to align and dozens of cultists and some human sacrifice and all that jazz, so that the game-world never needs to be tweaked on the assumption that Good King Charlie could be revived after an assassination. The bestest Cleric in the land would show up in the morning after his death and be unable to ressurect him, and unless his family can find an evil cult and some willing sacrifices and wait until the 'stars are right,' Good King Charlie is gonna stay dead as Dillenger.
Ressurection / Raise Dead spells exist to bring PCs back after some cruddy rolls. Not to change the fabric of the game world.
Adjust those spells to suit their actual role.
For lower level parties, where the GM *wants* a less lethal option, but a little bit of freedom to mix it up with encounters, Unearthed Arcana also has an OGL solution for that. Action points. Allow PCs a chance to avoid sudden death from crappy dice-rolls, and therefore keep deaths meaningful and story-relevant, and not just 'oops.'
|
|
While an interesting posit, it's purely a setting choice. If the players are ready for a grim and gritty campaign, which, all Dark Suns-esque, includes multiple characters ready to replace any who fall, that's also a valid assumption.
Odd. I read the first set of Dark Suns novels and I do not recall that much title character death.
Of course one might suggest that is part of the general "attitude" marketing of certain product lines. "Our campaign is so lethal you need three PCs just to have a chance one might survive!" That works in Paranoia, but that is a very different genre.Also as I recall, Conan was always rather grim and gritty. A lot of other pulp heroes as well. Again, they never seemed to have much of an issue with surviving until the next installment. So no, I do not believe it has anything to do with setting.
Personally, I don't think the assassin needs any spell-like or supernatural abilities to cover her tracks - she should be able to do it via mundane means:
- Hiding in shadows before making the killing strike means that a corpse won't be able to identify its killer with Speak with Dead since it didn't see what happened.
- For that matter, an assassin that mastered the art of Disguise could cause the corpse to give false positives when asked to I.D. their killer.
- Raise Dead can be circumvented by removing or destroying key parts of the body; the head, or the heart. Of course, I would expect an assassin to charge extra for this since it requires extra time spent with the body.
I could see a bonus to Will saves vs. divination spells and effects though - it could be supernatural or it could just be a "well-trained and disciplined mind that can better resist such magics".
As a side note, I have always felt the bonus to Fort. saves vs poison to be a bit lackluster. When I tinkered with the class, I took that out and replaced it with a major ability: increasing the distance in which the assassin is able to make a sneak attack/death attack. This way you can get rooftop snipers that actually only need to fire once, or really deadly combatants in melee. In both cases I believe it really embodies that "Art of Death" aspect people seem to think the class needs.
So are you asking for a deathless PC template? A dead at 0 HP NPC rule?I am not asking for anything. I already understand the concept and run my game accordingly.
I am stating what should be obvious but which has not been seriously and openly discussed for whatever reason.
I still don't understand how that's supposed to help my game. If you offered a mechanic, there might be something to discuss. As it is, I can't even imagine how you make this idea work at the table. If there's an unspoken understanding that the DM will fudge the dice as necessary to keep the PCs alive, then that doesn't sound like much fun.
If you have an idea to discuss, why not start a thread?
|
|
I still don't understand how that's supposed to help my game. If you offered a mechanic, there might be something to discuss. As it is, I can't even imagine how you make this idea work at the table. If there's an unspoken understanding that the DM will fudge the dice as necessary to keep the PCs alive, then that doesn't sound like much fun.
Really?
Then why are pulp books still so popular?Why are action movies so popular?
The art of the DM is in convincing players that every single action they take, even the most mundane, is the difference between total success and abject failure (including death), despite an unspoken recognition there is absolutely no way the PCs will ever die, barring a specific and deliberate choice on the part of the player.
This is the same thing you see in the pulp genre, and in action movies. The same way Robert E. Howard or Edgar Rice Burroughs evoked that visceral feeling of dramatic tension in a book, the same way you dance at the edge of your seat when watching James Bond hang on edge of a cliff or what not, that same "fear" that Indiana Jones is going to get crushed by a rock despite it being the first five minutes of the movie. That is what I am talking about.
Just as there is an unspoken agreement to be scared in the horror genre, there must be that unspoken agreement for the hero to both be put in a death trap and to escape it in the pulp genre, including sword and sorcery, high fantasy, low fantasy, and other variants thereof. Without that, you are left with little more than a rather unbalanced variant of kriegspiel where you play the umpire.
In the realm of "fun", I know which sounds infinitely superior to me, though I know others feel differently.
As for offering a mechanic, as I said, this is not a mechanical issue. It is a genre comprehension and DM skill issue. Reducing it to a mechanic would destroy very flavor being sought. It cannot be "when you get stuck, have someone with a gun kick in the door", although that may well help resolve pacing issues. The problem is in looking for a mechanical solution.
Although I suppose in a way I am suggesting a mechanical solution - throw out the mechanic, replace it with better DM advice.
|
|
Samuel Weiss:
First of all, partially off-topic:Spoiler:
Conan, as far as I know, is a series principally about the protagonist (Conan) and it is in the creator's interest (financially and in terms of the stories which he wants to tell) to ensure that the protagonist doesn't die.The same can be said of certain Marvel & DC comic strip characters. No matter what perils some of them face, 'death' seems to be only a temporary inconvenience for them at worst.
In other styles of writing, heroes, or even main protagonists, meet messy ends. In the Arabian Nights Judar, an all round decent guy is murdered by his greedy, conniving, brothers, although avenged by his wife.
Boromir perishes in the Lord of the Rings close to the end of the Fellowship of the Ring, King Arthur in le morte d'arthur receives a mortal wound in battle, Robin Hood in the traditional English tales is bled to death by a treacherous Abbess.But this proves nothing, however, other than that there are examples of heroic fiction and/or fantasy where things work out differently than in Conan and some Marvel/DC stories.
And to come back to the point, a good DM (with the time) can adapt/tailor a broad spectrum of rules to meet the required style of game prefered by themself and their players.
Those are examples of different genres of fiction and fantasy, which have distinctly different focuses and feels than the various flavors of pulp.
Lovecraftian horror regularly ends with the destruction of the protagonist, yet rarely with the loss of the narrator, who is of course relating the tale.Morality plays, particularly tragedies, likewise have a tendency to leave a title character dead.
Those are not pulp.
Neither is the Arabian Nights, which is in fact about Scheherazade, who does in fact survive. It also happens to be a morality tale.
The Lord of the Rings is the story of four hobbits, not the downfall of the House of Denethor. You of course know just how deep in it said hobbits get while somehow managing to survive, deus ex machina included gratis.
King Arthur is a morality play and tragedy.
Local legends like Robin Hood, and fairy tales in general, actually serve as a prime example of genre shifting, both being routinely turned into action stories or given "Hollywood endings" to sell better.
I would say that proves quite a bit.
Now whether or not it is good for the market for which Paizo are aiming at (and the DMs) for assassins to be able (with a couple of good rolls on their part and/or bad rolls on the players' parts) to extinguish the existence of a PC and/or to be able to create a great any kind of uncertainty over whether or not the player needs another PC is something which I don't know.
However, it is my opinion that whatever sort of game Paizo are trying to make, it will be up against competitors, and that if PFRPG goes far with the official (saleable) rules in the direction of 'The survival of the PCs is sacrosanct' that PFRPG will be running the danger of encroaching onto the territory of other games, which have been longer established in that genre.
And that has risks*.Edit:
* Yes, for the optimists on this particular issue out there, I will acknowledge it might have opportunities too.
Which I why I was hesitant to mention it.
However, it is my opinion that if done properly this will actually give a significant boost to the hobby, reinvigorating it by making a serious effort to educate DMs and players alike on how to work within a genre but without rules. I could back that up with an endless series of anecdotes of generally diminishing lethality in game systems, including D&D, over the years, as well as references to related gaming modes, but people either already know that or are not prepared to accept it or both, so there is nothing to be gained in "winning" a debate on the issue.|
|
Official, printed?
Other than the suggested reading list in the DMG 1 you mean?
Unofficial, but overt statement of intent?
Other than the Paizo blog you mean?
I will not deny there is a very MPD attitude about the genre in what Gary Gygax wrote. Of course he was still dealing with the wargame origins back then.
But the vast majority of the inspirational material is of one genre, the same one providing the base for Paizo. The only exception in both is the Lovecraftian influence, which never affects the basic survival rate of the hero in any available expressions.
Sam,
In books, movies, pulp, comics, what-have-you, the protagonist can be assumed to make the 'right' choice, because there is only one option explored. After all, Conan didn't have free will. The author was dictating his actions.
In a game, there are choices. And part of the fun of the game is that those choices are meaningful. Isn't that the appeal of the choose-your-own-adventure book? If all paths end with punch and pie, what's the point? You might as well go read a regular book and save yourself the trouble. I realize that consequences other than death do exist, but death can be a consequence as well.
Is D&D rooted in pulp and epic fantasy? Yes. The difference is the medium, not the message.
|
|
Sam,
In books, movies, pulp, comics, what-have-you, the protagonist can be assumed to make the 'right' choice, because there is only one option explored. After all, Conan didn't have free will. The author was dictating his actions.
In a game, there are choices. And part of the fun of the game is that those choices are meaningful. Isn't that the appeal of the choose-your-own-adventure book? If all paths end with punch and pie, what's the point? You might as well go read a regular book and save yourself the trouble. I realize that consequences other than death do exist, but death can be a consequence as well.Is D&D rooted in pulp and epic fantasy? Yes. The difference is the medium, not the message.
Yes and no.
For a lot, see previous about the chat log. I explain a lot of what I mean there.For the rest, yes the medium is different, just as the medium is different from book to film. The point remains conveying that messagem which will not be conveyed with character death, no matter how you parse it.
And in fact, as I mention in the chat, the ending with punch and pie is in fact the point. Seriously. Why then read more than one book or see more than one movie? I have read every Tarzan, John Carter, Carson of Venus, and Pellucidar book. Over 50 books, one plot. I still read them. Why? They all had their own particular brand of thrills.
What however is the other option? Spend 6 months playing an adventure to have a TPK to a wandering monster right before the BBEG? Even dying gloriously to the BBEG is somewhat lacking. Not all games function on win or lose. Competitive sports, sure. Entertainment, no.
I'm not sure what you are aiming at Sam.
If you want a "The PCs are special" rule, I do not think this is where PF wants to be heading. 4E already introduced much along those lines, namely the PC-NPC divide. PF aims at patching up the holes and spicing up of 3.5, which is a very simulationist game at heart. In 3E PCs and NPCs go by the same rules, with each in the end only really protected from permanent death by the Power of Plot. So assasins should imho be abel to kill PCs as much as they should be able to kill NPCs.
OTOH i think attacking the root of the problem might indeed be the better option, if by that you mean fixing the resurrection spells and what they imply in world building.
I'm not sure what you are aiming at Sam.
If you want a "The PCs are special" rule, I do not think this is where PF wants to be heading. 4E already introduced much along those lines, namely the PC-NPC divide. PF aims at patching up the holes and spicing up of 3.5, which is a very simulationist game at heart. In 3E PCs and NPCs go by the same rules, with each in the end only really protected from permanent death by the Power of Plot. So assasins should imho be abel to kill PCs as much as they should be able to kill NPCs.
OTOH i think attacking the root of the problem might indeed be the better option, if by that you mean fixing the resurrection spells and what they imply in world building.
I'd be quite happy to see Raise Dead bumped to 7th, Resurrection to 9th and True Resurrection disappear completely. Then the only way to bring back someone who has their body completely destroyed would be by special quest (like Orpheus' descent into the Underworld to recover Eurydice).
I'd be quite happy to see Raise Dead bumped to 7th, Resurrection to 9th and True Resurrection disappear completely. Then the only way to bring back someone who has their body completely destroyed would be by special quest (like Orpheus' descent into the Underworld to recover Eurydice).I'm not sure what you are aiming at Sam.
If you want a "The PCs are special" rule, I do not think this is where PF wants to be heading. 4E already introduced much along those lines, namely the PC-NPC divide. PF aims at patching up the holes and spicing up of 3.5, which is a very simulationist game at heart. In 3E PCs and NPCs go by the same rules, with each in the end only really protected from permanent death by the Power of Plot. So assasins should imho be abel to kill PCs as much as they should be able to kill NPCs.
OTOH i think attacking the root of the problem might indeed be the better option, if by that you mean fixing the resurrection spells and what they imply in world building.
I did this in several of my campaigns. I bumped up all life-returning magic by 1 level and doubled the costs. Reincarnate became a 5th level spell, Raise Dead became 6th level, Resurrection became 8th level and True Resurrection became a 10th level spell (I don't use the broken epic rules, so 10th level spells are basically plot devices). It worked fine. In my current campaigns, however, life-raising magic is by the book so to speak.
|
|
I'm not sure what you are aiming at Sam.
If you want a "The PCs are special" rule, I do not think this is where PF wants to be heading. 4E already introduced much along those lines, namely the PC-NPC divide. PF aims at patching up the holes and spicing up of 3.5, which is a very simulationist game at heart. In 3E PCs and NPCs go by the same rules, with each in the end only really protected from permanent death by the Power of Plot. So assasins should imho be abel to kill PCs as much as they should be able to kill NPCs.
OTOH i think attacking the root of the problem might indeed be the better option, if by that you mean fixing the resurrection spells and what they imply in world building.
PCs are special. If the game rules do not recognize that they are doomed to failure, and if DMs are not taught that they are left having to learn it the hard way which becomes a drag on the entry of new players to the hobby. If PFRPG is not heading that way then it will suffer from that lack the way other editions of the game rules have. Being simulationist in no way conflicts with that depending on what is being simulated.
The casual problem with assassins is how to kill targets permanently.
The root of that problem is in having PCs die like NPCs, not in how raise dead and the like work. Yes, can patch that by making raise dead and such higher level and more expensive and whatever. That will not resolve the long term issue it presents with plot management.
|
|
Wow, there are some great ideas in here everybody.
Here is what I am currently thinking about:
An ability that prevents raise dead at low levels, and scales up to prevent up to Resurrection (but True Res will always work). In addition, this ability could prevent Speak with Dead at a certain level.
I am also thinking that an Assassin should be able to trap the soul at 10th level, but they can never have more than one soul in this way... meaning that if they take another, they have to let the previous one go. Could make for some fun RP opportunities.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
whoa love this idea!
once played a character in a mmorg that said that her victims would neevr return to life because she took their souls away by readingtheir true name when she killed them...she could then take the soul and work with it... using it to impersonate the victim (who never was seen again) which made aflawless impersonation since she took real details from the person... for me... the idea is great
|
|
As I have mentioned previously, what happens when the uber-cool supernatural assassin uses his ability on a PC? You leave a player in limbo whilst the rest of the group decide whether to try to undo whatever it was, or to go recruiting for someone else.
It is also not fun for a player to end up having to sit out most of a session after the first encounter turned out to be with an assassin who rolled well, bounced a character, and then got away, with the other PCs spending the rest of the session chasing after the assassin 'determined to get the soul back' (meaning the player doesn't want to roll up a new character) but due to sucky dice rolls repeatedly failing to nail the assassin in question.Edit (edited, tidied up):
Yes, a good DM can find some way to work around a situation like this, but to what extent are you trying to design a game to be run 'mostly by good or better DMs'?
i would say the assassin can oly use this abilities on contracts...usuallythe charactersaremeant to stop them not to be the target
if they are the target then the assassin is trying to get them, so is the PCs job to protect their lives... an assassin could kill a PC if the cistumstances are rightthe DM should givethe players a few chances to notice the killer... unless the idea is to kill him.
for example in my table if an assassin kills you, you are dead... simply... we don't use spells to revive characters... still no one has died yet... but we work hard to stay alive.
The casual problem with assassins is how to kill targets permanently.
I think this is only a casual problem if targets casually return to life.
I agree that in a world where Raise Dead and Resurrection spells are common practices among the wealthy, wannabe assassins would find some ways around those spells. I would argue however, that whatever way to circumvent a potential return to life should be just as available to any morally-ambiguous characters, not only assassins.
That is why I see the "and stay dead" ability as a setting-related access to rituals/objects/poison/dark pact or mere ingenuity as opposed to a built-in assassin class feature.
In settings (and homebrew versions of published high-fantasy settings) where Raise Dead and Resurrection are not treated so casually then the problem should not occur often enough to be worth addressing. Also, the assassin class should still be usable "as-is" since its non-spellcasting iteration makes it now available to low fantasy settings and games with a "toned-down" magic theme.
[edited for grammar]
'findel
|
|
i agree
death and resurrection shpuld not be casual
in our games the rule is.. if the PCs can do it... the NPCs can do it too...
again in my games i prefer not to give resurrection or raise dead options unless very specifics terms are done and arenever lightly
haven't crossed into this problem... the one time i would have a really dead character i let him roll a reflex just to evade the killing damage, this was just because against all odds... he decided to protect ... the beer... he failed miserably... also... the gnolls were looking for other thing... not the beer :P
|
|
haven't crossed into this problem... the one time i would have a really dead character i let him roll a reflex just to evade the killing damage, this was just because against all odds... he decided to protect ... the beer... he failed miserably... also... the gnolls were looking for other thing... not the beer :P
Died protecting the beer? Wow, gotta admire his focus. :)
The whole 'PCs shouldn't die cheaply' genre trope is best served by Action Points (or some variant of that mechanic, with my own preference being to make them more like M&M style Hero Points, being more potent, but with only one available per session).
The whole 'PCs shouldn't die cheaply' genre trope is best served by Action Points (or some variant of that mechanic, with my own preference being to make them more like M&M style Hero Points, being more potent, but with only one available per session).
I use those, and also added back in a "resurrection survival" roll (Fort save, DC dependent on max age of PC's race). That way, death is less certain, but more likely to be permanent if it does occur. (I also have Morganti weapons in my homebrew campaign.)
|
|
I think this is only a casual problem if targets casually return to life.
. . .
That is why I see the "and stay dead" ability as a setting-related access to rituals/objects/poison/dark pact or mere ingenuity as opposed to a built-in assassin class feature.
If you need a special rule for an "assassin"prestige class, I would say potential targets are pretty casually returning to life.
|
|
Patching the specific casual problem you identify might be as simple as reducing the time within which raise dead and resurrection are effective to minutes rather than days or months. This serves the purpose of allowing the PCs some options to revive a comrade who falls in battle, but negating the return of the defunct politician whose body is not discovered until the next morning, hours after the assassin ushered him into the afterlife and fled.
Not really. All that does is make low level play suck even more, and massively increase the pressure on anyone playing a cleric to only take such spells at that spell level.
I personally prefer not to run (as written) systems where either the mechanics are 'one set for the PCs, another for everyone else' or where advice is given to the DM to the effect of 'whatever you do, a PC must NEVER EVER DIE. Your game is full of fail and you suck as a DM if you ever allow that to happen'*.
* Yes I am exaggerating this latter comment somewhat for effect; I don't know of any official systems out there which literally go quite as far as this.
Yet again, the first is why I am not proposing a mechanic, the second I have not provided specific text for.
As for exaggerations, the opposite charge of "If you are not killing PCs to keep them in line, your game is made of nothing but SUCK!" is why I hesitated to bring it up in the first place.
Either case interferes with how I like to run a game, interfering with my own enjoyment and enthusiasm. Yes, if aliens were invading in some weird Space Jam scenario tomorrow, and (even more improbably) the only way to save my favourite teabag supplier from destruction were to run such a game then I would do so, but I doubt that I would enjoy it much.
Playing in such games I switch into casual 'autopilot' mode, messing around and not caring so much about the end result. I don't know if that makes it a better or worse or simply 'other' form of fun.And other people's mileage, I expect, will vary considerably.... :)
This is where the whole issue of designing a game only a super-expert DM can run and designing a game for those with more mundane ability.
If you already know what you are doing, you presumably know you do not have to kill PCs to prove something or other, and that putting notches on your DM screen or battlemat it not even remotely cool.If you do not know what you are doing, having a section that discusses the the basic genre and its tropes, including that the PCs are the protagonists, and should have a rather significant amount of plot immunity.
As for having fun as a DM, actively killing PCs has never been something I have associated with that. In fact, I typically find it antithetical to fun as it destroys consistency within the campaign, the ability to develop in-depth PC connections to the campaign, and causes long-term player decay in interest in the campaign.
(...) I would say potential targets are pretty casually returning to life.
but wouldn't it be where the problem lie?
|
|
haven't crossed into this problem... the one time i would have a really dead character i let him roll a reflex just to evade the killing damage, this was just because against all odds... he decided to protect ... the beer... he failed miserably... also... the gnolls were looking for other thing... not the beer :PDied protecting the beer? Wow, gotta admire his focus. :)
The whole 'PCs shouldn't die cheaply' genre trope is best served by Action Points (or some variant of that mechanic, with my own preference being to make them more like M&M style Hero Points, being more potent, but with only one available per session).
aye it revolved around the character concept for about 2 different reincarnations... a monk and the one i killed a rogue/fighter...
he was alwayssaying phrases refering about beer, and drinking beer and just enjoying beer (just mentioned the plant from where beer is made instead ob bird itselve... "cevada" in spanish)
without irony... he considered it... avaliant and honorable death :P
|
|
but wouldn't it be where the problem lie?
Not necessarily. Sometimes the problem is elsewhere. A problem can be higher up a rules hierarchy, and changing a base rule can eliminate the need for multiple exceptions. Or it could be a synergy effect that is best solved by changing the other rule and leaving the current one alone.