| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could always just houserule to make the victim save as if they were coup de graced...My main gripe, the SAVE DC is still going to stink. There needs to be something to boost that for Assassins, or their main dynamic simply isn't that good.what if Death Attack was 3 rounds at 1st, dropping to 2 rounds at 3rd, and dropping to 1 round at 5th?
(homebrew solution)
On the end side of things, I think that would be too powerful as coup de grace DCs are pretty much impossible to make unless from someone who is just plain awful at damage. It's certainly more in line with what you immediately think of when you see "Death Attack" though.
EDIT: Ah, ninjas.
Oh really? If that's your line of reasoning, are PCs in your games required to make diplomacy checks every time they talk to an NPC for any reason in order to convince the NPCs they're not threats?
Are the PCs threats? Do they intend bodily harm to the person they are talking with?
Because if they do, the person is going to know, unless you deceive them; the reason is that this is the way people - and the Bluff skill - work.
When we know violence is coming, we tense up, ready our muscles, adrenaline increasing, making our heart rate increase, eyes dilate, and have a million other tiny reactions that prepare us to survive the violence we know is coming. Our posture, emotional state, and even our health alter; all of this is in preparation to survive violence - our body shutting down non-essential systems in order to maximize the ability for survival. This is true whether or not you are planning to be violent or you believe someone else is.
This is a noticeable reaction. Often times, the "notice" is something subconscious - many times the various little tells are recognized by a person, even if they don't realize what they are noticing.
So in that case, it's not just the fact that people carry weapons (though that could lend itself to making the NPC nervous). It's the way they're handled, the posture of the person with them (which will be different, normally, if you're planning on using them than if you're not), and the other subconscious clues that all add up to scream "I AM GOING TO BE VIOLENT" to others with no words uttered at all.
Most of the time, the violent intent in a creature of any sort is obvious... unless the violent intent is deliberately obscured, and deception (i.e. a "Bluff") is used to feed a target social cues that tell them "No, really, man, everything is fine. The dilated eyes? It's because of mirth, not readiness." "Tense muscles? No, see, they look totally relaxed!" and so on. You voluntarily change and obscure how your bodily reactions and emotional displays naturally appear for the purposes of keeping someone off of their guard.
If you don't intend violence to someone, you're not going to send the same natural, subtle signals as if you do. Hence, no bluff check.
If you want someone to actually stop what they're doing and come listen to you while you study them, unless they already like you (are friendly or better) you're probably going to have to persuade them (because they do have a life, and chatting with someone you don't know can be awkward). This is the fundamental function of diplomacy.
Further, weapons will complicate things by putting everyone slightly off-ease. This isn't enough to put an indifferent creature to unfriendly, per se (though it might be, depending on said creatures inclinations), but it's enough to put them on their guard, which could prompt a purposeful and active sense motive check (in addition to the normal reactive check they get for interacting with a liar).
You can hide weapons, of course, but that's a sleight of hand opposed to a perception check. And a successful perception is going to make the person very leery.
Now, you can, of course, change the timing or utility of these things. A quick word, a single roll, *BAM* get things done. That's fine. But that's not following the rules - that's altering them to make an assassin's job easier. Which is fine if you want that (and it's a great thing to do for a player, as a GM), but still needs to be recognized.
If you want to just say that the assassin doesn't have to deceive the target of intended violence, that's fine. There are no other rules for being able to deceive a creature other than Bluff, but a GM doesn't need strict by-the-book rules anyway - they need to make their game run smoothly.
But when a class demands that you ignore the rules of the book to make it function well or easily, you've got something at least slightly wrong.
In your example, if the target's Sense Motive check was higher than the assassin's Bluff check, why would the target automatically assume "OMG he's planning to assassinate me!" instead of something like, "Wow that guy's rude; what's his problem?"
See, the problem is, that's not what "Sense Motive" is or does. It doesn't tell you what the guy's plan is ("He's planning to assassinate me"); it does tell you what his motive is ("He intends violence, not friendship!"). This is enough to recognize the guy as a non-specific threat ("I don't know what he's up to, but he's got violence in his eye!"), which, per RAW, is enough to spoil Death Attack.
"Rude" is not a motive in this case - the assassin doesn't care about being rude except to hide that he's about to murder a person.
The fact that the assassin is looking at the person is, generally speaking, obvious (DC 0 to notice a person standing right there and see what they're doing); the assassin's job with bluff is to obscure the myriad of subtle social cues telling the observed why they're being observed (or even that they're being purposefully observed at all; a successful bluff check might leave the assassin looking bored or seeming as if they're looking past the target or something).
It's the same concept as an assassin hiding weapons. You can hand-waive that he can literally hide the dagger under his jacket (which, of course, he can); rules-wise, though, you have to make a sleight of hand check to do so (which assassins get a bonus to) and this automatically prompts a Perception check (to oppose the Sleight of Hand) whenever interacting with another creature. How the other creature notices the "hidden" weapon is many and varied - perhaps it's noticing the way the assassin's cloths skew slightly, or they notice the tip of the handle of an otherwise-hidden dagger, or the glint of a small bit of metal otherwise hidden by darkness. The rules don't cover what, exactly, gives it away, only that the Perception guy now knows that it's there.
EDIT:
Could always just houserule to make the victim save as if they were coup de graced...
I wanted to say, but forgot, that this is a great house rule! ... it's just that it's definitely a house rule, not part of the class itself, which means that the class itself doesn't deliver on what it's supposed to do, unless you alter it. Hence it's problems.
Last time I checked, hiding that thinking of something didn't involve a bluff check unless magic is involved... Just having intent doesn't require a bluff check.
Last time I checked, hiding that thinking of something didn't involve a bluff check unless magic is involved... Just having intent doesn't require a bluff check.
You're not thinking something, you're doing something. You are taking a standard action each round to size up a creature to prepare it to be killed by you. This is an action. It is hostile. Hence, hostile action, by definition.
What Bluff does is disguise the action or intent that you are taking by deceiving people.
What detect thoughts does is read the surface thoughts (and their emotional context), regardless of what you seem like on the outside or what you do or do not say aloud.
These things may or may not intersect.
EDIT:
I had half a post written and then Tacticslion said everything I could have, and better. Bravo.
Thanks! :D
Also, the Giant Hunter's Handbook totally covers this now.
That is... cool! Thanks! (It sucks for an assassin, but it's still cool!)
Also the Red Mantis Assassin gets the ability to fascinate the opponent and if they keep it up for 3 rounds, coup-de-grace them.
Which, I've got to say, is actually really daggum cool. Again, doesn't help the core assassin, but it's really daggum cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An assassin studying for a death attack isn't really just 'intent' though. He's taking an action in game.
Sense Motive to differentiate between 'creeper' and 'killing intent' makes a great deal of sense, to me. (And that's assuming any necessary Perception checks to notice the character staring at you from stealth or whatever have been made.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is interesting. I had never though of it as this way either, but it does make sense to require a bluff check. The strange thing is that most of my NPC's would require a bluff check to convince them you meant no harm. I have no idea why I never thought to apply it to the assassin also.
PS: I have never used an assassin as a player or GM. I prefer the slayer if I ever try it.
PS2: I think the death attack of an assassin, rogue/ninja, or slayer should be dex based, if not strength. The assassin, ninja, and slayer are not int based classes. I would not mind them being allowed to choose.
An assassin studying for a death attack isn't really just 'intent' though. He's taking an action in game.
Correct! A hostile action!
Sense Motive to differentiate between 'creeper' and 'killing intent' makes a great deal of sense, to me.
Pretty much what it does, by definition. :D
(And that's assuming any necessary Perception checks to notice the character staring at you from stealth or whatever have been made.)
Yeah - for those 9-or-less WIS guys, it's pretty hard, but most folk can make a DC 0-to-3 Perception check without actually rolling the dice. :D