Assassin Death Attack and Feint

[Imper1um]

I promised that after the convention I would post this to the rules question to see what you all think a ruling on this.

WARNING: Spoilers to Eyes of the Ten Module 3...Do not read if you don't want to ruin it for you!

Spoiler:

Situation: In the previous encounter, the 6 Rogue/7 Assassin used a Hat of Disguise to appear as a really prominent Pathfinder ally (which he killed 3 days earlier). He fooled them, and approached the Cleric, and tried his Death Attack, but failed. The turn after the surprise round, he teleported to his master's side.

In this encounter, he is at his master's side, pleading to be released from his bonds. For 3 rounds, he "pleads" his master, studying the L12 Rogue using Bluff (which none of them thought to Sense Motive/Perception). Meanwhile, a fight ensues between the master and his minions. Then, the Rogue gets within 5 feet, and the slave takes a swing (Feint) at the master. On the next round, he uses his Death Attack against the rogue and the rogue rolls a 9 (killing him).

The Wording Problem: In the Tactics section of the fight, this is specifically listed on how the Assassin operates, which is odd. Most Assassins stay in the shadows, but this is the first time I've seen an assassin Feint Death Attack, but it was specifically listed on the tactics section, so I did exactly as it said.

(I bolded the phrase that both me and him had an issue with)
Death Attack:If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly either paralyzing or killing the target (assassin's choice). Studying the victim is a standard action. The death attack fails if the target detects the assassin or recognizes the assassin as an enemy (although the attack might still be a sneak attack if the target is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class or is flanked). If the victim of such a death attack fails a Fortitude save (DC 10 + the assassin's class level + the assassin's Int modifier) against the kill effect, she dies. If the saving throw fails against the paralysis effect, the victim is rendered helpless and unable to act for 1d6 rounds plus 1 round per level of the assassin. If the victim's saving throw succeeds, the attack is just a normal sneak attack. Once the assassin has completed the 3 rounds of study, he must make the death attack within the next 3 rounds.

If a death attack is attempted and fails (the victim makes her save) or if the assassin does not launch the attack within 3 rounds of completing the study, 3 new rounds of study are required before he can attempt another death attack.

Well, what would your ruling have been if it wasn't specifically listed like this?

[Cheapy]

So I guess the important bit is, do PCs/NPCs always get an opposed roll, even if they don't announce it?

[wraithstrike]

I am confused with the way this is written.
Was the assassin detected as an enemy by the person he tried to use death attack on?

[Cheapy]

Spoiler:

The assassin spent 3 rounds bluffing to make it look like he was a slave of the master to make it look like he wasn't an enemy but really someone forced against his will. No one tried to see through the lies.

[wraithstrike]

I wish certain skills such as sense motive were stated as being reactive*. I think they are intended to be the rules, but don't specifically say so.

*The character should not have to call for them.

With that said and using Cheapy's spoiler the feint would not even be necessary if the assassin won the surprise round or initiative.

If he did not win init then I guess the feint would be needed.

[Cheapy]

Spoiler:

From what I gather, the Feint was there as a "fake attack" to seal the deal that the assassin wasn't on the master's side. Kind of a cool way to describe it.

But yea, that's why I think the important question is that reactive skills one. On one hand, that would obviously tip off the players kinda ruining the point...but it's an opposed skill to use bluff. Maybe they just take 10, like the disguise rules stipulate? I dunno.

[Vendle]

Spoiler:

It looks like the writers/designers of the module interpreted "detection" as exactly like "recognizes as an enemy", which is not the interpretation used in most every other case.

Merely the fact that the party saw the assassin should negate his ability to use Death Attack until he can somehow hide his presence again. He can still get a sneak attack.

As a side note, I would let an assassin take a feat for this type of maneuver; seems pretty slick but just beyond what the normal rules allow. That's my interpretation, of course.

Footnote: Bluff is an opposed roll when used to appear as a friend/victim. The party should have gotten at least the one roll to see through the lies when they entered the room.

Spoiler-ed because I don't know which information is significant to the module.

[wraithstrike]

Cheapy wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

But yea, that's why I think the important question is that reactive skills one. On one hand, that would obviously tip off the players kinda ruining the point...but it's an opposed skill to use bluff. Maybe they just take 10, like the disguise rules stipulate? I dunno.

In such cases the GM should roll secretly behind the screen. I also roll dice at random.:)

I have also asked players to give me 5 rolls and write them down. I might never use the rolls, but if I need them I have them.

[Imper1um]

1. I rolled Bluff behind my screen just in case they decided to Sense Motive. No one did.

2. In a Feint, you do not go against Sense Motive (DC 10 + Wis + BAB, or DC 10 + Wis + Sense Motive Ranks, whichever is better), but, yeah, everyone ignored the Assassin. Heck, he even moved in the way, and the rogue still took a 5 foot around him to attack the main guy.

3. The module specifically lists it like this:

Spoiler:

The assassin pleads with his master for 3 rounds, and then on the 4th round, he uses Feint against his intended target by taking no action or throwing a swing at his master. On the next round, he uses his death attack.

[maouse]

I see "detects the assassin OR recognizes him as an enemy." They knew he was there. No death attack. The "or" makes it an either/or situation. If they detect him he can't use it. If they recognize him as an enemy (through thought detection or such when unseen) he cannot use it. They shouldn't have to do both. Not with "or".

I think they tried to play loose and fast with the idea of an assassin's abilities which don't actually work the way they wanted them to. Bad enough you have to worry about them when you can't see them. The way it was played you have to worry every time an assassin feints an attack on someone else. Nah. Not cool.

[Cheapy]

Erm, you'd have to worry if the assassin spent 3 rounds doing nothing, feints, and then attacks. Just feinting isn't good enough for death attack. Those three rounds doing nothing but a standard action to study really count.

I really can't see how just detecting the assassin negates the attack. That murderates far, far too many historical methods of assassination for me to think it's the intent that simply seeing the assassin is enough to mean he can't death attack you at all. No more pretending to be a friend, becoming the Waiter of Death, acting as their carriage driver to lull them into a false sense of security, etc. Nope, the moment the target sees you, no matter whether he sees you as a friend, a foe, or completely neutral, you can no longer death attack. That makes perfect sense.

[maouse]

Well, no, every one of those "waiter/coach/delivery person" situations ended up with a fight, not instant death. Sure, he still got a sneak attack in on "normals" at the door and killed them in 1 blow (not because of death blow, because he was seen). But he didn't instantly kill the hero(s). That makes no sense. In order to kill a hero, he has to be waiting in the bush, studying him as he approaches, then sprint out and hit him right in the neck or something like that (before he is seen). Not say, "Hey, I was waiting in that bush to kill you, but you know, I am not going to do that."(wouldn't anyone be on guard at this point)"I lied - death attack!" That makes no sense... James Bond never had any trouble not getting assassinated by any foe he saw first. Neither should our hero. I mean, the scenario has him essentially being a party member, not an enemy minion...

Similar Module Error from ROTGK:

Its kind of like the Revenge of the Goblin King's first attack - He is supposed to cast sleep. REALLY? A level 5 adventure module and the Big Bad Improved end boss is casting a spell that only affects 4 HD of monsters? Its just wrong.

[Avatar of Groetus]

I have always used the "either detect him or recognise hes an enemy" a bit different. "detect" means they see the attack coming. So a disguised guy in a crowd still can deathattack you if you didnt notice anything odd.
Detect means Perception. Usually opposed by Stealth but i added disguise (as opposed to beeing invisible)and sleight of Hand (looking unarmed opposed to beeing invisible) to that. This supplements the "Betrayer" Feat
So: Disguise as Guard (players fail the preception roll)-> Study 3x ->surprise attack (players fail the senso motive roll against his hostile intend) -> he can death attack despite haviong been "noticed" since the players were deceived by his disguise.
Or: Assasin has the betrayer Feat-line and has hidden blades only (the players dont know about which they usually dont) they see a guy who is unarmed. Happens. -> study 3x-> Diplomacy(i allow bluff instead) check against party to increase their attitude towards him (if he makes his check and they dont call for a sense motive check which they have to succeed too) he can death attack.
Example of what i did:
GM: "An unarmed man is standing in the corner"
PC: "what is he doing?"
GM: "just standing there and looking at you"
Pc: "hmmm all of us or just one of us specifically?" (smart player)
GM: "He seems to have great interest in you (mage), What do you do?"
Pc: " "i dont think hes legit guys. i think hes up to something" rolls for sense motive (fails)"
GM: rolling for bluff (my guy wins)"He doesnt seem to be up to something sinister and walks over to you waving and calling out to you "Hey guys, lost your way?"" he then uses the betrayer feat and stabbs the mage in the neck who makes the safe (but it was a knifemaster who maxed out his sneak dmg so it didnt matter)

In short: I use following wording for the death attack: "He can use death attack If the assasin isnt recognised for what he is or hostility isnt expected"

[Pirate Rob]

I ran this recently at KublaCon.

Spoiler:

When I ran the first combat with him, I gave the person who approached him a sense motive roll vs bluff to see through the deception at the last moment and avoid the death attack.

The played failed the sense motive but succeeded on the fort save and proceeded to destroy the assassin before he could teleport away.

If it had gone to the second fight I was planning on running it like this:

Have the assassin beg and grovel for the 3 rounds as he eyes a PC. Have him make the feint against the demon, and then the next round assuming the PCs did not consider him an enemy, give his target a sense motive vs the assassin's bluff to not get death attacked.

For those of you attempting to commentate without having read the scenario it works like this:

Combat one: assassin pretends to be friend, PCs begin to get a little suspicious he stabs one and then teleports away on his first opportunity.

Combat two: assassin begs at the heels of his devil master to free him from servitude. After 3 rounds of begging assassin feints against devil. Finally on round 5 when the PCs guard is down he uses death attack against one of them.

The feint is not triggering the death attack. It's purpose is to help get the PCs to believe that he's on their team.

His bluff is high enough that it's unlikely to be seen though. Although a PC that invests in enough sense motive to see through it deserves to be rewarded by avoiding the death attack by seeing through the rouse.

[Vendle]

Revisiting this thread has made me realize that I also need to houserule Death Attack just so they can have the option of using Disguise and Bluff instead of just Stealth.

At least if they ever want to try out their signature ability.