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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5030649" data-attributes="member: 65726">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.</blockquote>

Verification