Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6692483" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!First...no, I didn't read the whole thread. I read this one, the last one and that's it. So if what I'm saying has been said before...then chalk this post of to another "Me too!" post. At least it may give you and idea of how many other DM's see it this way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Second: I go with "intent" over "mechanics" every time. Why? Mechanics can NEVER over all the nuances of how those mechanics would/could/should actually be used in the situations that come up in an RPG. Basically, think of the situation first, then see if a rule fits it. If so, go with it. If it's "close, but...", then use the rule as a base and adjudicated it (re: do your job as a DM) so that the rule mechanics make sense, go with that. If there isn't a rule for what's going on, then use your experience and other rules in the game as a guideline for making your own s#!t up (re: kind of one of the points of an RPG... and, IMHO, one of the most unique things about RPG's).So... "Assassinate" basically has the intent of "If the assassin gets the drop on his opponent and hits, he does more damage because he's an assassin and trained to strike vital areas when his opponent doesn't see it coming or doesn't have time to react". In a nutshell... as long as his target is still thinking "Whoa! What should I do! Aaaaaaa!, the assassins training has already worked and the assassin is stabbing him in the spleen. What the individual "mechanics" of various other rules or situations shouldn't be the determining factor; that factor should be "Dude, he's an assassin! He just jumped out in front of you and stabbed you in the spleen before you even knew what was going on".If you think of it in "movie" terms... it's like some hitman sneaking up behind someone, then reaching around and grabing their forehead to pull their head back, then with the other hand bring up a knife and slit the bad guys throat. By "mechanics", the forehead grab would be the attack, and then the hitman would be SOL for the 'assassinate' because the target gets a reaction; thus, ruining the "as long as the target hasn't taken an action" part. Does this make sense? Is it "cool" to run it this way? Would the player of an assassin be thinking "Yeah, that makes sense", or would he be thinking "WTF?!? What's the point of having Assassinate then?!? This sucks!"? If it's the latter...you're doing it wrong.My suggestion, obviously, is go with RAI over RAW. If you allow a wizard to shoot up a Shield spell before an assassin can use his assassinate...well, it's your game and you have to live with all the other unforeseen consequences of that ruling. If you say "Normally, yeah, you could do it...but this guy is an actual assassin and is trained to be quicker than you. So no, you can't get your shield spell up"... well, it's your game and you have to live with all the unforeseen consequences of that ruling. Mind you, in the latter case, your rulings in the future will be harder for rules lawyers to argue with because you ruled in a "unique situation" and didn't just outright say "This is how the hard-coded rule works". Your choice. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification