Assassin Feedback

[Artoomis]

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

Sigh...

One more time:

As written, there is no proper distinguishing between melee weapons and ranged weapons. Any time the term "weapon" is used without some sort of qualifier, it always means either melee or ranged.

For example:

"Apply the carrion crawler brain juice poison to your weapon or one piece of ammunition. Until the end of the encounter, whenever you hit a creature with a weapon attack using that weapon or ammunition,..."

What if I choose to use my blowgun as the weapon. As written, I do not need to ever apply poison to ammunition, I can choose to apply it to the blowgun. By the current write-up, I can then used the blowgun to deliver poisoned weapon attacks for the rest of the encounter.

There is no rule that says the poison must be applied to the ammunition for the weapon to make a successful poison attack.

There are at least a couple of ways to fix this.

1. Re-write the "apply to..." phrases to be "...apply to one melee weapon or one piece of ammunition." This fixes the oddball rules problem, but does mean ranged weapons are considerably less effective than melee weapons for some poison delivery. Given that some assassins are built to specialize in ranged weapons (League of Whispers), it seems either overly-generous to melee assassins or overly-restrictive to ranged assassins.

2. The other way to fix it is to re-write the "apply to" phrases to be "...apply to one weapon" and make no mention of ammunition. This means whatever rules apply to melee weapon as far as how many times you can use the poison apply to ranged weapons as well. This plus the ranged weapon on par with melee weapons, though one can certainly argue about whether that is the correct design decision.

The first solution would leave all the current design decisions intact and just add clarity and avoid an obvious RAW not equal to RAI mistake.

The second solution is a design change as well as making RAW = RAI. Though, in this case, RAI changes because it's a different design decision.

Another possible approach would to use option 1 and also change the write-up to something like::

For a single piece of ammunition, the choices would become:

"The first creature you hit with a weapon attack using that weapon or ammunition..."

or

"The first two creatures you hit with a melee weapon attack using that weapon or the first creature you hit with the ammunition..." (This is instead of lasting the whole encounter)

The keeps the intent of the melee weapon being better than a ranged weapon, but its not so imbalanced.

For the one power that lets you poison five pieces of ammunition, I'd leave the "Until the end of the encounter, whenever you hit a creature with a weapon attack using that weapon or ammunition,..." wording intact.

Alternatively, always allow poisoning of multiple pieces of ammunition whenever the poison on a melee weapon lasts for the whole encounter. This is a simple approach, and could pretty well.

 

[Theroc]

As written, you are attacking with the blowgun. Sure, you use ammunition to attack with the blowgun, but that does not change the fact that you are attacking with the blowgun. A +1 blowgun gets +1 to attack and damage with the darts. In the same way, one could argue that , as written, the weapon that gets the poison is the blowgun and so the darts all get the poison form the blow gun.

I am not saying it should work this way, but that's the way it is written.

To work only for ammunition, the poison should only be allowed to be applied to melee weapons or ammunition. Not just a "weapon" without regard to whether it is melee or ranged.

Yes, because the blowdart has a grooved barrel like modern weapons and gives the dart spin to increase accuracy and damage. Not because you are hitting WITH the blowdart. Weapons that fire projectiles grant bonuses to their mundane ammunition because it would likely be unfair to charge more for magical ammunition than to just have the weapon apply the accuracy/damage buffs to the projectile. Poisons need to be applied to the projectile, however.

Covering a ranged weapon with a poison implies you are striking WITH the blowdart gun itself, not firing a projectile. If you are saying that coating a blowdart with poison, then apply some contact poison, such as a the poison arrow frogs skin secretions to a gun, and attempt to fire it, and then test if the target was exposed to the venom. I highly doubt it will be.

 

[Larrin]

Regardless of what part/object you are poisoning, there should be some way of getting the poison attack every time you puff a dart at someone, that's what, say, Carrion Crawler Brain Juice Poison is all about. Everytime you hit with your poisoned weapon you deal extra 2 poison and slow. There should be no difference whether you choose to use a melee, thrown, or ammunition based attack (well maybe thrown, thatss always been an odd place until you get magic ones).

The encounter long poisons are similar in power to dailies with encounter long effects, they give you numerous little bonuses all encounter long. If you get only one 2 poison damage and slow attack with a blowgun, but encounter long with a short sword, or magical thrown dagger, something incorrect is happening.

If that isn't what the power is saying now, then they should change it so it does. Its unclear at best interpretation and leans towards NO at strictest interpretation. Espeacially the bit about "one piece of ammunition", it really sounds like they mean one piece only. (and if it is want they meant, its a very poor choice). There is no reason why encounter poisons should not work ranged, balance-wise. Either only let it be used in melee so no one bothers wasting it on blowguns, or make it clear you've poisoned an encounter's worth of darts with that minor action and remove ambiguity.

My suggestion: change 'one piece of ammuntion' to 'one type of ammunition' and state when you hit with 'that weapon or type on ammunition' you get the poison. Either you should get it on all ranged attacks, or don't bother letting them use it at range at all!!! Intentionally having a daily do 2 extra poison damage and slow for one round once with any ammunition attack is HORRIBLE design choice (followed by poor player choice to use it that way, and sorta lame DM choice for not house ruling it otherwise).

 

[Neverfate]

Well, on the topic of the assassin (I have no issues with the poison rules. Read the RAW or RAI however you want, I don't see why this would be argued at a table), I was curious to know what everyone thought about the utility powers? Other than the level 6 utility that gives you a climb speed (Ghost of the Rooftops) all the utilities seem less that interesting/effective. I'd be hard pressed to find a use for some of them. Also, another utility (Vanish) is more or less exactly the same as Slayer's Escape. Both are level 6 utilities. I don't get why Slayer's Escape wasn't just reprinted.

Also, how useful is the level 4 utility power that reduces fall damage by 10? Flavor wise, I think it's neat, but how much use is it going to see? I know you get it at a level that you don't normally get anything, save for ability score increase and a feat, so it's more of a bonus than anything. I'd rather just see Ghost of the Rooftops be a power that is inherently learned.

 

[Larrin]

Also, how useful is the level 4 utility power that reduces fall damage by 10? Flavor wise, I think it's neat, but how much use is it going to see? I know you get it at a level that you don't normally get anything, save for ability score increase and a feat, so it's more of a bonus than anything. I'd rather just see Ghost of the Rooftops be a power that is inherently learned.

I've taken damage from falling at a rate of once per 20 sessions, I'd guess. But if I had an ability that let me ignore 10 damage, I'd be more gutsy about falling, jumping off walls, and such, so I think its one of the powers that having might make you use it more than you'd need it if you didn't have it

 

[Neonchameleon]

I love the class ... cut to constructive criticism.

1: Assassin attack finesse is in dire need of errata. +d6 damage with either single handed weapons or assassin weapons (read: garottes). Otherwise you simply buy Weapon Proficiency: Fullblade or Executioner's Axe. And the power curve just breaks. Hell, a maul will do it. (Oh, and Kukri Lunge becomes pointless)

2: There really needs to be a dagger at will. Or two. I mean. Seriously? Kukri and javelin but no dagger? Which means that one of the archetypal assassin weapons is among the worst weapons they can choose. (For melee, rapier or longsword beats it hands down. And at range if you're a ranged assassin go shuriken)

3: Unarmed throw. This should be against a NAD. Ref or Fort - or a choice. AC makes little sense. Likewise the Bolas (I don't care which one- there's an argument for the bolas to hit the worse of the two).

4: There are some odd features of the garotting rules. Like the ability to use one for an opportunity attack while having it round someone else's throat. (The trailing end of wire, I suppose?) Several possible solutions including making you only need one hand to sustain (so you can draw a normal weapon in your other hand for MBAs).

5: Unseen Spearhead. This appears to be a newbie trap at heroic when compared to Garrotte Strangle. If you don't keep the target grabbed for the entire round then it does nothing. If we ignore Vicious Greatspears for the moment then a crit does only around twice the damage of a normal attack anywhere in heroic - so assuming both hit and no escape, the garotte strangle is about on par with damage after the first round of sustaining. But this doesn't take into account that the garrote already did damage, is more accurate, and harder to escape from. You need 2 rounds before overtaking the garrote.

6: Without superior cover, total concealment, or some form of invisibility, the assassin can't hide. Which means he's hosed by certain styles of DMing (and if I see another rose bowl I'll be annoyed). Possible synergy with the missing dagger power? The dagger doesn't do extra damage, but the small weapon does allow the assassin a distraction to hide in regular cover that turn?

7: Silent Stalker. Does this automatically unhide you at the end of your turn? Or can you use it to "sling shot" - silent stalk to the guard and then take your second action to run past them to the next spot of cover. (I'd allow the sling shot, myself, but can see arguments both ways).

8: Was the intent for any or all of precision darts, bolas takedown, and unarmed throw to gain the bonus damage from Attack Finesse. And if they do do they also gain the enhancement bonus?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

this is to just to offest his assasination ability:

when he jumps down a cliff, reducing himself to 10 hp, he kills himself...

 

[nookiemonster]

I love the class ... cut to constructive criticism.

1: Assassin attack finesse is in dire need of errata. +d6 damage with either single handed weapons or assassin weapons (read: garottes). Otherwise you simply buy Weapon Proficiency: Fullblade or Executioner's Axe. And the power curve just breaks. Hell, a maul will do it. (Oh, and Kukri Lunge becomes pointless)

The power curve breaks? +d6 damage is +3.5 damage per hit, on average. Same as Hunter's Quarry, isn't it? And doesn't the Thief get the same class feature? A Slayer can add his dex mod to damage as well, so a slayer 16 dex is getting +3, almost as much. And the Slayer can just as easily use a big sword or axe as the Executioner Assassin.

 

[Artoomis]

... Poisons need to be applied to the projectile, however...

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.

It would be better to fix the rules now than to try and defend flawed rules later.

 

[Theroc]

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.

It would be better to fix the rules now than to try and defend flawed rules later.

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.