Assassin Feedback

[Falkus]

You are applying real-world logic to the rules. Not unreasonably, mind you, but still, just reading the rules, nothing says you must apply poison to ammunition for a ranged weapon to be able to deliver the poison.

And how many DMs are going to see it that way?

 

[Xris Robin]

You're welcome to applying the poison to the blowgun, but don't be surprised if you end up being poisoned...

Assassins are immune to their own poisons.

 

[Artoomis]

This kinda reminds me of a discussion in the Legacy are where a person commented that being dead is no hindrance to a character, as the rules don't state what the status: Dead incurs on the character, which means NOTHING happens when the character dies. At least, that's the impression I got from my brief look there.

I suppose it SHOULD be fixed, but sometimes the game designers assume we use our noggins to fill in blanks too.

Yeah, but this is a really bad error. Unless you say otherwise, "weapons" includes ranged and melee. And the poison rule only talk about "weapons" and ammunition, but never restrict weapons to melee only (or maybe melee and thrown is more accurate when thinking about the fix).

 

[Artoomis]

And how many DMs are going to see it that way?

I couldn't say. If played in an RPGA game, well, the rules allow it. As written. Maybe (well, pretty much for sure) they did not mean to do it that way, but that's what they wrote.

The point, of course, is not to defend the rule as written but to, per WotC's request, offer feedback on the class.

 

[Theroc]

Wouldn't feedback for WOTC go to WOTC?

 

[Obryn]

I think that the relationship between these At-Will attacks, and the original Assassin At-Will attacks should be clarified.

I mean, could a "normal" Assassin take these? Or more to the point, could one of these Guild Assassins take an original Assassin power?

I'm going with "no" but I think it'll have to be addressed for clarity.

-O

 

[Insight]

I think that the relationship between these At-Will attacks, and the original Assassin At-Will attacks should be clarified.

I mean, could a "normal" Assassin take these? Or more to the point, could one of these Guild Assassins take an original Assassin power?

I'm going with "no" but I think it'll have to be addressed for clarity.

-O

They'd have to let an Executioner Assassin take any of the other Assassin at-wills. Otherwise, Human Assassins have no 3rd at-will to take.

 

[CelticMutt]

That would take another action. The sidebar makes it clear that the intent is the assassin can choose to kill or not, but the poison write-up takes that choice away, at least as written.

I'm actually fine with it as written, but then the sidebar conflicts with it and I assume the sidebar is what they really meant to happen.

Actually, that's wrong. As written, it is saying the Assassin can choose to kill the target after it's been rendered helpless. It is not implying that the Assassin is supposed to have a choice to kill with the poison or not.

 

[Obryn]

They'd have to let an Executioner Assassin take any of the other Assassin at-wills. Otherwise, Human Assassins have no 3rd at-will to take.

Hm? There are four attacks for each Guild, and a Guild Assassin takes two, by default. A Human could just take a third.

Or, they could just take the new Human encounter power like a Slayer or Knight would.

-O

 

[Artoomis]

Wouldn't feedback for WOTC go to WOTC?

Well, sure. This discussion is about feedback that has (or will) go to WotC. Did you not catch that from my first couple of posts?