I want to say that i find a very bad idea to have PCs of different levels inside the same party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some players pride themselves on their abilities to create immensely powerful class combinations. It may be possible that he is just exaggerating, where "I'm going to break the game," really means, "oh man, my character is going to be such a beast he'll be able to kill anything!"
If this is the case, he's not really done anything wrong. It's a game, and if that's the only way he can enjoy it let him have his day in the sun. As others have mentioned, however, if he is there just to cause problems; if he only derives enjoyment from throwing a wrench in the system; if he likes Michael Bay films; get rid of him. I wouldn't advise that you handle it in-game, as a person of that mentality is likely going to throw an enormous fit and drag out a heated argument when he feels like you're turning his own plans against him. Explain to him that GMing is enough work without worrying about your players working against you. If he can't appreciate that, he can't appreciate gaming at your table.
I want to say that i find a very bad idea to have PCs of different levels inside the same party.
True, but only if the level difference is large. The OP is only suggesting that the new guy come in at the same level as the current lowest level player, which appears to be one level lower than the rest.
Absolutely the new guy needs to start no higher than the current lowest level player in the game. New guys never get to start more powerful then a existing player.
I want to say that i find a very bad idea to have PCs of different levels inside the same party.True, but only if the level difference is large. The OP is only suggesting that the new guy come in at the same level as the current lowest level player, which appears to be one level lower than the rest.
Absolutely the new guy needs to start no higher than the current lowest level player in the game. New guys never get to start more powerful then a existing player.
Agreed 100%. Allowing another player to start at a higher level than the lowest level PC in the party only creates resentment in those players that are lower level. They worked hard to get where they are. Why should someone start at a higher level? The only time I could see this as acceptable is by all the player's consent and in a situation where an experienced player might be trying to help out inexperienced or new players...but even that is a stretch in my books.
As for having different level PCs in a party, it can be an issue if more than a single level apart. Start getting 2 or more levels different, and it will wind up being an issue at some point, especially with trying to balance encounters.
{being evil providing} “More RPing opportunities” generally means, in this case, more chances to act out puerile teenboy fantasies learned by playing too much Grand Theft Auto- killing innocents, raping, torture, stealing randomly and generally being jackasses.
While this may be true for some groups, it has not been so for many years in my own experience. Not since around grade 11.
Evil in our group has created RP opps simply because, as we game, we discover what made each of us as messed up as we are.
My last campaign I played a Cleric of Knowledge, named Orwell (in honor of George Orwell, author of "1984") who moonlighted as sadistic serial killing vigilante, all stemming from his childhood where a cult of murder terrorized him, killed his sister in front of him, and forced him to kill other children (which shattered his dreams of projected hero worship involving his great grandfather). The biggest RP of this was that my friend and I made characters who were brothers, and his guy, Alukar, was a goodguy, but living in denial of the monster that his brother was. But other RP stuff involved my church, who actually used my ... "talents" to remove sources of misinformation, and those who were trying to suppress the flow of knowledge and education. Finally, Orwell himself would be struggling to keep his stories straight, separate his two lives, and constantly battling his inner demons.
This campaign, we're all evil Drow living in a Drow city, and there is plenty of adventure in this setting of betrayal and hidden wars between houses. Each of us has a different flavor of evil: I'm playing a rogue, a master of deception and disguises, who's obsessed with power and hoarding slaves, and derives pleasure from lying and deceiving others. The priestess is convinced that the only true loving bond between a Priestess and Goddess (Lolth) is during the sacrifice of a sentient being, and "collects" undead from those she sacrifices as trophies and fodder. The Alchemist is elitist, apathetic, clinical and ruthless - never seeking evil, but quietly letting it surround her ... until she is threatened, at which point she's brutally efficient. Our quiet ranger (a switch-hitter in combat, and a scout, tracker and interrogator otherwise) loves animals more than people, who he seems to have some angst built up against, and expresses it with torture and intimidation. The Sorcerer is simply insane, and detached from the world, obsessed with a strange floating cube which he secretly prays to... but he loves his spells and delights in the destruction and harm they can create. My Slave, a Hobgoblin Monk (also a PC) seems rather dull and quiet, and remarkably docile and obedient, but he suddenly becomes animated and actually laughs out loud when I give the command to kill - he loves to apply his craft to the fullest extent, I guess... I wonder why he acts that way. I should ask him.
So Evil and RP can very much go hand in hand.
I want to say that i find a very bad idea to have PCs of different levels inside the same party.True, but only if the level difference is large. The OP is only suggesting that the new guy come in at the same level as the current lowest level player, which appears to be one level lower than the rest.
Absolutely the new guy needs to start no higher than the current lowest level player in the game. New guys never get to start more powerful then a existing player.
I think that it's a bad idea to have PCs with different level in the same party in the first place, that has nothing to do with the new player.
At the moment, the group is at 6/6/5/4. Being a level 8 X/Y/Z is already out. Starting at level 7 is out. The level 5 isn't too far off, while the level 4 is unfortunately bad with his attendance. They are started off at the same level.
So I had a potential player approach me the other day telling me that he was going to roll a level 8 Shadow Dancer/Assassin/and something else, thus breaking the game. I know he comes from a mechanic breaking heavy background, apparently.
What do I do about this? From a GMing pre and during game stand point?
I'm actually curious how he figures shadow dancer/assassin/whatever else is breaking the game. Both shadow dancer and assassin are kinda "meh". Assassin especially so, since it got nerfed in Pathfinder while everything else got buffed.
Honestly, at first glance, I'd imagine he was the type to picture himself some sort of mad mechanical genius, master of breaking games, only to...not be.
Please do post his build. Like many others, I am skeptical that it will be in any way game-breaking.
|
Some additional details I have to bring up, I'm in a slight pickle
1) The banning evil NPCs are out as a majority of the players are evil. They were adamant that it would create more RP opportunities, and thus I've allowed it.
Okay, you won't have to worry about this campaign for long. It will end in fire. Requests for evil campaigns without a specific plan in place descend into talking about debauchery.
2) The player is friends with everyone and they want him in. However, they know of his shenanigans and suggest that he start at the same level as the lowest level player (being level 4)...rather than one level -higher- than the highest level (as HE wanted).
So... the other players want to introduce someone they KNOW is a destabilizing force over multiple campaigns?
This is SO ending in fire. Have you played with this group before? Because they're all asking for a GM to sacrifice.
At the moment, the group is at 6/6/5/4. Being a level 8 X/Y/Z is already out. Starting at level 7 is out. The level 5 isn't too far off, while the level 4 is unfortunately bad with his attendance. They are started off at the same level.
I'd start him at "freshly" 5th.
The bad attendance of the level 4 player shouldn't hurt other players' gaming experience if you can avoid it.
I'm actually curious how he figures shadow dancer/assassin/whatever else is breaking the game. Both shadow dancer and assassin are kinda "meh". Assassin especially so, since it got nerfed in Pathfinder while everything else got buffed.Honestly, at first glance, I'd imagine he was the type to picture himself some sort of mad mechanical genius, master of breaking games, only to...not be.
I haven't been given the sheet yet, I expect a horror show. I was only told in passing of his intention to join the game and his build. Bragging that you can have infinite prestige classes and it's going to break the game.
To the second point, this 100%. I've played with him before with another system where I set the 'level' to two. What ended up rolling was a character who was 2/2/2, by lack of understanding to be honest rather though.
At the moment, the group is at 6/6/5/4. Being a level 8 X/Y/Z is already out. Starting at level 7 is out. The level 5 isn't too far off, while the level 4 is unfortunately bad with his attendance. They are started off at the same level.
The fact that this player had the nerve to ask to be level 8 to begin with seems to indicate the "type of player" he is.
If (and I say "if" with reservation, since only you as the GM would know for sure), the player of the level 4 PC is bad with attendance and such is the only reason they are so far behind, then I might let the new PC be level 5...especially since you say the level 5 PC is nearly ready to level to 6. But starting at 8 (2 levels higher) is ridiculous, as would be starting at 7 (1 level higher). Starting at 6 seems a poor choice for those that got there honestly, or are about to get there. I might allow starting at level 5 in this situation (maybe half-way to level 6 XP-wise at best) - but definately behind the existing PCs. That would keep things at approximately 1 level between PCs (writing off the level 4 as attendence seems to be an issue). Given that this new player "believes" he is obviously a "PC creation mechanical genius", being one-level behind shouldn't be an issue unless he really is talking "smack".
I'm actually curious how he figures shadow dancer/assassin/whatever else is breaking the game. Both shadow dancer and assassin are kinda "meh". Assassin especially so, since it got nerfed in Pathfinder while everything else got buffed.Honestly, at first glance, I'd imagine he was the type to picture himself some sort of mad mechanical genius, master of breaking games, only to...not be.
I haven't been given the sheet yet, I expect a horror show. I was only told in passing of his intention to join the game and his build. Bragging that you can have infinite prestige classes and it's going to break the game.
To the second point, this 100%. I've played with him before with another system where I set the 'level' to two. What ended up rolling was a character who was 2/2/2, by lack of understanding to be honest rather though.
If he means that there isn't a cap on how many prestige classes you can join then he is correct but if he means that the levels in PrCs don't count as levels then the player needs the beginner box.
This is SO ending in fire. Have you played with this group before? Because they're all asking for a GM to sacrifice.
Yes. :| I try not to think about that.
Honestly, I'm in favor of starting him at level 4 for a few reasons.
1. I can police this "super" build early. See where he's going and planning.
2. Humble him. I think he had a build in mind at level 8 and likely at 25pt spend. My game is a 15pt spend. I'm the same GM to his usual crowd.
3. As bad as the player's attendance is, he only missed a few sessions. It wouldn't be fair to him with the sessions he spent. The question if he could get to level 5 by being new would pop in.
I like the Shadow Dancer and the Assassin for flavor and for the abilities, but they're not that powerful mechanically in my experience. Hiding at will in many circumstances is useful defensively, potentially useful offensively to the assassin, but it's not a game breaker, and the means to counter it have already been posted. I've played with an assassin in my group for months now (assassin/ranger actually) and she gets more mileage from the ranger favored enemy than she does from the death attack. She doesn't need Shadow Dancer when a party sorc casts invis on her, but hey, our party actually works together, not in competetion. Just seems easier (and more fun) when there's party synergy instead of an ego contest.
Asking to start at a higher level than the group should be right out, and is probably a bigger sign of a problem character than the claim that he will 'break the game'. Four's a fine number to game with - all roles can be covered, plenty of opportunities to break the game as a group, depending on the experience level of the players. Talk to the potential and extoll the virtues of being a team player rather than a sniper who makes life miserable for his compatriots (i.e. - you might actually let him play if he plays with instead of against the group).
All this was already covered in posts above. I just like the sound of my own voice. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to set about breaking the game I'm playing in and seeing how long it takes them to kick me out. :)
So I had a potential player approach me the other day telling me that he was going to roll a level 8 Shadow Dancer/Assassin/and something else, thus breaking the game. I know he comes from a mechanic breaking heavy background, apparently.
What do I do about this? From a GMing pre and during game stand point?
With the shadow dancer thrown in, it sounds like he wants to be able to map the entire dungeon by hopping into shadows and never committing to any one shadow. So OK fine, traps can also be in shadows, providing a worst case scenario. Trapped in a part of the dungeon unknown to the other players with a nasty trap sprung on him.
If all else fails mind control/charm him and let the other players kill him, because he was too powerful for them to subdue peacefully.
Yeah look at it this way, the new guy missed 100% of all sessions so far. ;)
He should start at the lowest level in the group. AND he should start at the beginning of that level.
After all, why should a PC (or all the PCs) gain any XP for something they didn't do on their own?.
They used a class feature to overcome an encounter, no different than a Druid neutering an encounter with say... Wall of Thorns or a similar effect.
The fact that the encounters are not well enough designed to provide a challenge is not the players fault, after all.
I agree. This feels especially wrong to me because this is a metagame control over a character's in-game behavior. In a sense the GM is forcing the players to play their respective characters stupidly, taking unnecessary risks when there are safer alternatives available to them.
For shame!
|
"So, player, let me get this straight -- is it that you're concerned your build is too powerful, or are you declaring the intent that you are going to give me or the other players a hard time? Because if it's the latter, you can get out now. Contentious, competitive gameplay is not welcome at my table."
Wise advice from one of the most level headed people on this forum. Deathquaker, I always enjoy reading your posts.
|
|
1) The banning evil NPCs are out as a majority of the players are evil. They were adamant that it would create more RP opportunities, and thus I've allowed it.“More RPing opportunities” generally means, in this case, more chances to act out puerile teenboy fantasies learned by playing too much Grand Theft Auto- killing innocents, raping, torture, stealing randomly and generally being jackasses.
Seconded....(and I really don't have much sympathy toward GMs who cater to the mentality).
In any slightly realistic setting, an entire legion would be after this gang of outlaws like the FBI on Bonnie & Clyde.
Azten +1
Just make sure he isn't joking.
I have a few thoughts;
1. It still isn't clear what your player means by "break the game". As has been pointed out it seems that he's only broken the rules with an illegal build, and hopefully that is not what he meant...
2. It is especially important to establish what "evil" means in a party with mostly evil characters. If evil means being selfish then you shouldn't have any problem, unless the characters are also stupid. If evil means psychopathic then that could easily be a problem. If evil means you are on the "other" team then you probably don't have a problem as long as everyone is evil/good.
3. Party XP rewards are the least important part of the game. If everyone is within a couple levels of each other you won't have any mechanical problems from XP. Giving a lot of XP or a little XP only influences how quickly the party progresses and nothing else. So just make sure you don't get too lopsided if you care about everyone contributing a similar amount to checks/combat.
4. If it were me, I'd switch over to party XP and avoid the entire issue of what level to start new players at. Otherwise I'd start him at average party level, rounding down.
1) The banning evil NPCs are out as a majority of the players are evil. They were adamant that it would create more RP opportunities, and thus I've allowed it.“More RPing opportunities” generally means, in this case, more chances to act out puerile teenboy fantasies learned by playing too much Grand Theft Auto- killing innocents, raping, torture, stealing randomly and generally being jackasses.Seconded....(and I really don't have much sympathy toward GMs who cater to the mentality).
In any slightly realistic setting, an entire legion would be after this gang of outlaws like the FBI on Bonnie & Clyde.
Who the heck considers "killing innocents, raping, torture, stealing randomly and generally being jackasses" childish teenage boy fantasies? Played too much grand theft auto--what? O.o
Man, I was biting heads as Blanka in Street Fighter II when I was like 5, and I was playing Mortal Kombat I&II religiously before I was 9 (the games that are the leading reason we have video game ratings today, I might add), and was rockin' GTA all over the place as a Teenager. Played Tenchu Stealth Assassins like it was going out of style, and snapped necks and shot faces in Metal Gear Solid. I slaughtered the innocent in Kagero Deception II as the villain, and was blowing fist-sized holes in mutated animals in Parasite Eve. When I was like 9, Vampire Hunter D was like my favorite movie alongside Aliens and Terminator I & II. I splattered the blood of my enemies in Bushido Blade, and unlocked my Devil powers in Devil May Cry. Thinking back, I remember being a bit disturbed by the guy melting in the toxic waste in Robocop, or that one guy being cut open while he was alive in Robocop II, but being like 6, that was probably fair...
So why in the flying frisbees does it terrify me to hear that those things mentioned as childish teenage boy fantasies? I started playing D&D when I was 13, and my raging barbarian spent half his time digging the party's sorcerer out of a spiked pits and carrying him back to town for aid, or risking life and limb to rescue the party's sorcerer from the rockslide, and there was that time that damned sorcerer...
Maybe I'm just odd, but I don't want to associate with anyone whose childish fantasies involve murdering innocents, rape, torture, stealing, etc.
Maybe I'm just weird, 'cause I also played with Barbies with my sister and really love Harvest Moon in addition to the new Mortal Kombat that's banned in Australia. Maybe Winnie the Pooh saved me from some sort of twisted Grand Theft Auto and Spinal Ripping corruption.
/tangent
Him "I'm going to break the game!"
Me "Wow! You beat pathfinder!... Oh wait."
Honestly, it doesn't matter as long as you have fun. If he breaks the game and you and the other players have the time of you life then everyone wins. If no one but him enjoys himself then tall him his character has got to go.
|
So I had a potential player approach me the other day telling me that he was going to roll a level 8 Shadow Dancer/Assassin/and something else, thus breaking the game. I know he comes from a mechanic breaking heavy background, apparently.
What do I do about this? From a GMing pre and during game stand point?
If it has not been said yet it is impossible for a character coming into a game or any character in general to break a game.
The game can only be broken if the GM allows the game to be broken.
"So, player, let me get this straight -- is it that you're concerned your build is too powerful, or are you declaring the intent that you are going to give me or the other players a hard time? Because if it's the latter, you can get out now. Contentious, competitive gameplay is not welcome at my table."Wise advice from one of the most level headed people on this forum. Deathquaker, I always enjoy reading your posts.
+1.
DQ has been there and done that. GMed 17+ level campaigns, and lived to tell about it. Here.
Also, always polite and well-reasoned and well-spoken. This is the kind of GM I aspire to be.
Another +1 to DQ.
As for evil campaigns, I DM'd one where the party were cops in a Duergar trade town, and while yes they were evil (the animated bodies of their defeated capering before the brain and eyes they'd stored in necromatic keeper jars being a giant example) they never did the traditional turn on each other evil thing that it seems evil parties descend into.
Ramble.
Maybe he's thinking his shadow companion will kill everything? It being incorporeal and having an at will ability damage attack makes it quite formidable in many (but not all) circumstances.
I've had a shadowdancer in a game or two, and I'll tell you this: most Paizo modules are wholly unprepared for shadowdancers, or more specifically, their companions. I've had entire dungeons cleared out by a single shadow that went ahead of the party, avoiding all the traps and killing enemy monsters with impunity.
Maybe you've stumbled on the true plan. That would be perhaps FAR more annoying than an assassin sitting about for three rounds per death strike...
I wouldn't know what to do if that happened, other than penalize the party for doing NOTHING but that seems wrong.
Introduce necromancer(s) that can take over his shadow buddy, and make it attack the party. :)
So I had a potential player approach me the other day telling me that he was going to roll a level 8 Shadow Dancer/Assassin/and something else, thus breaking the game. I know he comes from a mechanic breaking heavy background, apparently.
What do I do about this? From a GMing pre and during game stand point?
At level 8, his best is Ninja 5/Ass-ass-in 1/Shadowdancer 2.
His feats will be Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility, 1 TBP, possibly +1 racial feat for human and 2 ninja tricks. He will have HiPS, improved uncanny dodge, evasion, darkvision, DC10+Int Death Attack, and a few b@&*#**% abilities.
He will be sneak attacking for +4d6 with his +4 BaB, and sporting around +16 to +20 stealth, +24 at the outside. Color me unimpressed.
I want to say that i find a very bad idea to have PCs of different levels inside the same party.
I agree. Especially true if you award sessions differently because of the fights in them.
There was this one guy who skipped every sessions in which we were not going to fight (we kind of knew from the context of the previous session) but made sure to come for every xp-awarding session. I skipped only one fight, the one against the boss, because of my father (who stabbed to death my mother, my brother and my two twin sisters, hanging himself in the living room and living me to clean all the night) and I was left one level behind the other players. I resented it.Ok, that did not happened, but it happened that I could not play because of work (which may be less pleasant than the above example) and got behind the others: I didn't like it.
That said, if you decide to let him play , let him enter at the lowest level at the table. I'd also say to let everybody play at the same level, but at the very list don't humiliate the lowest level player even more by making the new guy play at a level higher than him.
Level aside: if a new guy were to tell me in advance that his character is going to break the game I would ask him clarification before deciding to let him play, telling him immediately that I like my game and I don't want to see it ruined. Check that the PC is legal and, if it is, evaluate whether its level of power is appropriate or not to your game. You could be tempted to deal with it in game but that's a trap, you will only spoil the fun of everyone at the table, you and the new guy included.
You could be tempted to deal with it in game but that's a trap, you will only spoil the fun of everyone at the table, you and the new guy included.
Perhaps. This is good advice, but it's very possible to humble a problem player by dealing with it in game, if you do it just right. :3
So I had a potential player approach me the other day telling me that he was going to roll a level 8 Shadow Dancer/Assassin/and something else, thus breaking the game. I know he comes from a mechanic breaking heavy background, apparently.
What do I do about this? From a GMing pre and during game stand point?
At level 8, his best is Ninja 5/Ass-ass-in 1/Shadowdancer 2.
His feats will be Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility, 1 TBP, possibly +1 racial feat for human and 2 ninja tricks. He will have HiPS, improved uncanny dodge, evasion, darkvision, DC10+Int Death Attack, and a few b@$%*~@$ abilities.
He will be sneak attacking for +4d6 with his +4 BaB, and sporting around +16 to +20 stealth, +24 at the outside. Color me unimpressed.
This is exactly how I was thinking... I could not come up with a build that seemed anywhere remotely near 'broken' with what was said about the character.
Sounds more like he thinks he is smarter than he actually is, just trying to build himself up :P
Hide in Plain Sight + Sneak Attack with Two-Weapon Fighting was pretty nice but hardly gamebreaking
Do note that HiPS or Stealth does NOT make your foes lose his DEX bonus automatically, (only Invisible does), thus no Sneak Attack. It’s a common error, since it was that way in 3.5. They are thinking about changing the rules to make it that way, however, there’s a Blog.
By RAW it does not work that way, but it didn't say that in 3.5 either. It was RAI though. There was an Rules of the game article that showed intent that was similar to Paizo's FAQ section. This is explained in detail in other threads on the boards.
Yeah, I've never known anyone to play it the way you describe, DrDeth. If you can't detect someone's presence, than they are effectively invisible to you.
On another note, it IS possible to game the Death Attack DC. Take 10 levels of assassin and 6 levels of master spy. That gives you a base DC of 26.
By the time you get that high, it's easy enough to have an intelligence score in the 30s (getting you at least another +10) as well as the Ability Focus feat (+2) and an assassin's dagger (+1).
That's a DC of 39. High enough to be useful until you retire your character. Even at lower levels, you can keep the DC competitive. By ninth level, every assassin relying on his death attack should be able to afford the dagger, have the feat, and some intelligence boosts (getting them at least a 20). That would put their DC around 21 or so. CR 9 monsters have their good saves at about +12, meaning you have a 45% chance of ending every CR-equivalent fight before it even starts. That's a pretty powerful ability.
The only reason it falls short for a lot of people is because they don't even bother trying to pursue raising the DC. That's not a problem of the class, it's a problem of the player. Doesn't matter if you are a wizard or a fighter. If you don't keep up with your primary abilities, they are going to be far from useful at higher levels.
Yeah, I've never known anyone to play it the way you describe, DrDeth. If you can't detect someone's presence, than they are effectively invisible to you.
Maybe by the RAI, but not the RAW, which is very clear if you read the Blog with the suggested rules changes.
I've read it, but that was a while back. Maybe I'll go look again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Route his "breaking" of the game by creating an anti version, most games allow the capacity for that to occur. As an example in 3.5 I had a shadow elf, rogue/assassin who was always hidden unless in daylight. Our campaign set in the underdark I was murdering everything, so the DM through a custom made light monster with a 100ft daylight aura +20 perception and blindsense. I enjoyed doing 1d4 damage to it for the entire game. He can break the game all he/she wants but this is the GM's world what he may break you may unbreak with a bit of imagination.
2. Gently remind this character if he/she begins to get out of hand, that the character may be retired for slowing/disrupting or just making the game not enjoyable for the other players and disallow recreation of the same character. This way he can play and get props on the build that he/she cornered themselves into retiring early. Break the game with a character, challenge accepted but can you do it again?
3. If the rogue areas are where the "breakage" is occurring. Then use the expanse of Pathfinders challenges to really show him/her what it means to adventure. Hauntings, chases, traps and environmental hazards have no qualms with whether or not you can be seen.
4. There was a similiar question about a Magus being too powerful for his group Link There are some gold ideas here as well.
I've read it, but that was a while back. Maybe I'll go look again.
Check in concealment section.
Even at lower levels, you can keep the DC competitive. By ninth level, every assassin relying on his death attack should be able to afford the dagger, have the feat, and some intelligence boosts (getting them at least a 20). That would put their DC around 21 or so. CR 9 monsters have their good saves at about +12, meaning you have a 45% chance of ending every CR-equivalent fight before it even starts.
1) If you max out on intelligence boosting, you're neglecting something else.
2) You're still restricted by the three-round rule, which means you either have to catch your victim unawares or sit out the first three rounds of combat while invisible or whatever.
3) Note that the Death Attack is subject to all the limitations of Sneak Attack: 30' range, can't affect oozes elementals or swarms, etc.
That said, sure, if you're going to play an assassin it makes sense to crank the DC.
Doug M.
1) What does an assassin need besides Dexterity and Intelligence?
2) True assassins stop combat before it starts.
3) True.
The ONLY thing that makes the assassin and shadowdancer weak prestige classes is that they are not really team players. Half of an assassin's class abilities, for example, become useless the moment you start traveling with a full plate combat charger with the face of an permanently disgruntled ogre.
The ONLY thing that makes the assassin and shadowdancer weak prestige classes is that they are not really team players. Half of an assassin's class abilities, for example, become useless the moment you start traveling with a full plate combat charger with the face of an permanently disgruntled ogre.
Well, I disagree with part of that- I think a Shadowdancer can be a great team player, it depends on how you build it. Its really only the Assassin that isn't since it is either effective on its own, or spending 3 rounds doing nothing if its with a group. (unless they sit around and do nothing while the assassin runs around shanking things)
Still, as much as one could make a great assassin/shadowdancer, I really don't think it would be game-breaking unless the GM really let it.
I would be much more concerned about a 10th level Ninja, personally