Balancing an assassination attempt on a player

[Jaysue]

in our campaign myself as a player (wizard) was recently targetted - basically i really pissed of an NPC when we agreed to get a minor artifact from a vampire (whose castle he could not enter, for unnamed reasons) and return it to him for some sort of substantial reward (unknown to us).

However, when we got the sword it proved to be too good to give up (+3 longsword, int mod to AC and damage, no crit die) and my group promptly lied to the npc and went on their merry way....

Of course he found out (he was an expert in deals with demons) and came after us with some quite scary demonic friends!

I was clearly the focus of their ire, the plan being to kill me - likely lose his allies - and flee with the sword. Unfortunately part of my wizards personality (he is a deva who fears death because of some evil acts he was unwillingly involved in) means he will do anything to prevent his own death so he has a hearty set of powers/items that all give him defenses/avoidance !

Blur proved most effective, Wizards Escape and Shield coming into play and having the sword itself keeping me safe.

I've gone on long enough! but maybe you can take inspiration from that.... or tell me to shutup! either way

 

[Hjorimir]

I'd target whoever makes the most sense within the context of the campaign's plots. I'd also not have the assassins ignore the other characters during a combat to their own detriment unless there is a substantial reason that the assassin just doesn't care of it dies in the process of completing the mission.

Keep in mind, even if they are willing to die for the mission, it doesn't make sense to die and fail the mission; so I'd only have them ignore being beat upon if they have the target character near death and feel that they can close escrow before sucking dust themselves.

 

[the Jester]

The assassins should choose their target based on who pissed off their employer. They should strike when the party is weakened, playing to their own strengths and the party's frailties.

A good assassination attempt should succeed a lot of the time.

All this is IMHO. Depending on the play style that your group prefers, of course, you may want a less "simulationist" approach to this encounter, but personally, I find an assassination attempt that is the fault of the pcs (by virtue of past actions) to be much more satisfying than a random "assassins attack! hurr!" encounter.

 

[Piratecat]

I did this, with five or six kenku assassins targetting the party's shaman. She only survived by the skin of her teeth; She spent several rounds in single digit hit points, trying to get to safety while the other PCs attempted to draw attacks. It made for a tense and fun encounter.

The trick is balancing it properly, though, as you don't want that one player to feel screwed over.

 

[sfedi]

i imagine if they loose an encounter to assassins they will probably be dead

Not necessarily.

They could get rescued if they loose (to introduce an NPC for example), or a single PC could be dead, or be gravely wounded and out of the action for one adventure, etc.

He rather should place this encounter in a simulationist context. Who hired them, why did he hire them and why this PC.

An assasination attempt made in a simulacionist way is the most un-fun thing to do.

What you are saying, I think, is to justify it, contextualize it, explain it, etc.
Which is essential.

Not much is worse than a "narrative" encounter which doesn't make much sense at all and only serves as a hook without connection to the rest of the world.

Narrative doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

It means that it has a narrative semantic, that it has a function to play within the context of a story.

What happens when they win/loose is completely the players decision.

I don't understand this.
How can be the players' decision about what the encounter does/is for?
Or even how the enemies behave (i.e. what happens to them)?

But likely it will go like this:

When they win: The PCs start to search for the one sending assassins after them.

When they loose: The PCs pay some small sum of gold for a ressurection and start to search for the one sending assassins after them.

Oh, if you mean what happens AFTER the encounter, then of course, it's the player's decision.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I'm sorry, but it has to be said:

It is impossible for them to "loose", unless they are all archers.

Now away with all you rouges!

 

[Mengu]

Role-wise, I don't think it matters too much, who the enemy is trying to assassinate. I'd certainly try to make it more story based.

In a previous game, the party had their cleric carrying an artifact, which they knew the enemy was after. They chose the cleric because he was the most resilient of the lot. This sort of scenario can actually be cool, and lend itself to let the players pick who will be the target of the assassination. In our case, it so happened the cleric's resilience was insufficient.

In another game, the wizard got himself entangled with a thieves' guild. Result? An assassin came after him. Assassins are patient. He waited till the wizard was alone, and struck. So all this "how will the party protect him" stuff becomes irrelevant. It so happened, that particular wizard survived and the party took spectacular revenge on the thieves, scaring them away.

Game mechanically, despite some advice against it, I'd say controller or a striker would be the most fun characters to try and assassinate. This gives everyone something to do. The leader will keep dumping healing and temporary hit points on the target, as well as trying to grant defense bonuses. The defender's job is obvious. The controller will keep trying to push, slide enemies away from himself (or the target). Strikers can use interrupts or readied actions to assist the target, and try to play to the strength of their secondary role, while taking down the biggest threats first. I believe the squishiness of the controller would make this a scarier, ergo more rewarding encounter. Controllers also have some nice evasive maneuvers from teleporting, to short or long term defensive buffs.

 

[Mengu]

It is impossible for them to "loose", unless they are all archers.

Or ogres.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Or ogres.

Does this post, in fact, contain sarcasm? Because otherwise I can't make sense of it. In what way do orgres "loose"? I *so* don't want to miss the joke!

 

[Mengu]

Does this post, in fact, contain sarcasm? Because otherwise I can't make sense of it. In what way do orgres "loose"? I *so* don't want to miss the joke!

Shrek taking bath in bog. You see bubbles. Hope I don't need to be more explicit in what an ogre can let loose.