D&D 5E Encounter Concept: Wall Running Assassin

[Ruin Explorer]

That sounds like a great reason for PC's to have an in-game grudge or vengeance pact or whatever and set out on an adventure to learn the skills or find an item to lock him down or just even find the Assassin so that they can get a re-match.

I think that can work well when the players have buy-in to their own failure.

I think it tends to be a long-term problem that causes unhappiness without really deepening the campaign when they don't have that buy in. When they're not really complicit in the failure.

I don't follow the MDCM stream so I can't comment on the situation there. An undefeatable foe isn't necessarily a problem, appropriately signposted (which may be just in vague terms of what sort of campaign is going to be run). No buy-in to losing is a problem. Also it's way, way less bad to lose a PC in session 1 than in say, session 20, especially if the players were aware that it was "deadly" game or the like and hadn't overinvested in backstory and the like. Oddly enough, my experience is also that players take PC deaths way better than the deaths of NPCs they were publicly protecting. Weird? Maybe. But that's what I've noticed. PC deaths in most games are merely an annoyance - either the PC get res'd, or if that can't happen, the player gets a new PC of the same level (there are some who run things differently, but they're rare and often not running 5E). Whereas NPC deaths tend to be irrevocable.

The reason I'm saying "no buy-in" is that this seems to be an "out of the blue"-type problem. The players and PCs thus cannot be complicit in their own failure. Certainly in the book that was the scenario. No-one had any real idea this was coming, or who, or what their capabilities would be.

 

[Salthorae]

The reason I'm saying "no buy-in" is that this seems to be an "out of the blue"-type problem. The players and PCs thus cannot be complicit in their own failure. Certainly in the book that was the scenario. No-one had any real idea this was coming, or who, or what their capabilities would be.

I mean... I guess? I don't feel like it's a problem to do something "out of the blue" to players and let the narrative develop from there. shrug

Partly I feel like if you telegraph that something dire is going to happen and they won't be able to do anything about it, then you won't have as much player buy-in to the scenario. They WON'T go all out with resources, etc if they know they can't win. I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think you're being a bit literal-minded.

But y'know, go ahead, drop an NPC the players can't possibly beat, who is literally a ninja, arguably a GMPC (even if the GM doesn't see them that way), has a dramatic appearance and a totally kewl magic weapon and is very clearly showing off, and have him kill the person they've been hired to defend, shaming them publicly, and tell me how great that goes for you!

Because I'm guessing right now the answer is "not actually great". That's basically a list of things players hate right there, and players aren't stupid. Players aren't going to think "If only we'd done better!", because they'll have gone all-out (they always do in situations like this), they're going to think "That guy was just impossible", and you best scenario from that is they shrug, really.

 

[Salthorae]

Because I'm guessing right now the answer is "not actually great". That's basically a list of things players hate right there, and players aren't stupid. Players aren't going to think "If only we'd done better!", because they'll have gone all-out (they always do in situations like this), they're going to think "That guy was just impossible", and you best scenario from that is they shrug, really.

This could just be a table style difference at work here.

When I DM the worlds the PCs inhabit are not "level-appropriate". Sure, my planned encounters are usually, but random encounters, etc are not. In my games PC's don't just run into any threatening thing they find with the assumption that they'll be able to beat it. They may know/learn from past experience what they're capable of, but if it's something they've never seen they don't just assume it'll be a defeatable encounter.

I don't see why an assassination attempt should be different per se.

Again, it might just be table style differences at work here. My players wouldn't have too much of an issue with this concept and I'm pretty sure (though I've never done something exactly like this) that they would roll with it narratively. The things their characters encounter have the ability to change their characters, both from a "goal" standpoint as well as personality, etc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, it might just be table style differences at work here. My players wouldn't have too much of an issue with this concept and I'm pretty sure (though I've never done something exactly like this) that they would roll with it narratively. The things their characters encounter have the ability to change their characters, both from a "goal" standpoint as well as personality, etc.

What I don't think your getting is that players are indeed likely to "roll with" a dragon swooping in and eating the king or something, but far, far, far less likely to "roll with" an obnoxious GMPC type (which is absolutely how Szeth would appear to players), a single human ninja, just waltzing past all of them and offing the king.

Do you understand the difference?

I really doubt there is as much of a "table style" difference as you think. Players pretty consistently roll with some things better than others. And obnoxious ninjas who dodge everything and can't be stopped, whilst being too good to even bother with armour? That is not something that works for players without some build-up, background, context and so on.

 

[Salthorae]

What I don't think your getting is that players are indeed likely to "roll with" a dragon swooping in and eating the king or something, but far, far, far less likely to "roll with" an obnoxious GMPC type (which is absolutely how Szeth would appear to players), a single human ninja, just waltzing past all of them and offing the king.

I don't see the difference in a powerful NPC foe swooping in to "kill" the king vs. a dragon swooping in to "eat" the king to really be any different from an encounter perspective personally.

You apparently do, so I guess great that you see that distinction. For me, they're the same thing, same scenario.

I think you're either a) being presumptuous to assume exactly what players "won't roll with without build-up" or b) maybe projecting your own viewpoints a bit too hard on the generic "players" you're talking about here. I'm telling you that my experience with my players is that they would roll with this kind of a scenario. I've never done the exact thing, but now I'm tempted to just as a social experiment.

I'm also not sure why you keep calling this hypothetical NPC encounter/foe a GMPC either.

If you were to bring a Szeth-like NPC to waltz around with the party and beat all their enemies, I can see it being obnoxious and obviously a GMPC. But for setting up a mid-tier bad guy or even campaign BBEG I don't see someone who is above the PC's power level as "obnoxious". Certainly not if I can build it with PHB+1 and it would be Adventurer League legal.

Obnoxious is a really strong word for something that could essentially be a plot point or starting point for a plot in a game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Certainly not if I can build it with PHB+1 and it would be Adventurer League legal.

You probably couldn't though. If you have a five-person party, and you make an AL-legal PC-style character (not a Legendary NPC) who is within, say, six-eight levels of them (so mid-tier rather than end-of-campaign, as you say), and he's not trying to kill them, just the target, then unless they are inept, he's going to get stopped, because he's going to fail a save or get grappled and fail his escape checks. Which is going to be hilarious for the players but perhaps not for you.

I don't see the difference in a powerful NPC foe swooping in to "kill" the king vs. a dragon swooping in to "eat" the king to really be any different from an encounter perspective personally.

I feel like you have limited experience with different groups, or maybe have actually never been a player that you think this. I've played and DM'd for 30 years with a lot of different groups and seen a lot of stuff across a lot of RPGs, and I can say with some confidence that players, as a group, do not see "a dragon" and a single humanoid NPC as the same sort of thing in this kind of scenario.

Your group might not. That is possible - there's all sort of strangeness out there. But I would say most groups would.

Obnoxious is a really strong word for something that could essentially be a plot point or starting point for a plot in a game.

Because you're not thinking like a player. I get it. It sounds cool. It sounds awesome. As a DM, it's exciting (in part because it's almost like being a player - because there's more than a hint of GMPC - especially if you build him rules-legal). We've all been there. But if you as a DM, have never introduced an enemy you thought was awesome the players would respond well to, and have never got a surprising "naughty word this guy in particular" response from the players, one that doesn't reflect him being awesome, then maybe you have lead some sort of charmed DMing life.

And bear in mind - professional game designers have made this mistake. I don't know if you've played Mass Effect 3, but it a near-universally-loathed NPC called Kai Leng. He is basically this guy. No-one at Bioware is an idiot. Everyone involved in the writing had made many games before. Yet they still thought "Wow this guy will be an awesome baddy and the players will think it's cool to fight him and lose and eventually get to kill him!" and they totally thought wrong! People just thought it was rubbish, and that he was a rubbish cheesy opponent.

You are not dumb for thinking this is a good idea. But I do strongly believe - with some actual evidence, both from stuff like ME3 and personal experience with different groups - that "solo ninjas kills the dude you are protecting" or "solo ninja cheesily beats you and runs away" doesn't tend to go down well.

Yes your players may be an exception. There's probably a group out there which cooks haggis instead of ordering pizza, or which drinks champagne every session instead of beer. But that's about how unusual I think this would be.

I do strongly urge you to do the social experiment, though only if you will do it in good faith!

 

[Salthorae]

You probably couldn't though. If you have a five-person party, and you make an AL-legal PC-style character (not a Legendary NPC) who is within, say, six-eight levels of them (so mid-tier rather than end-of-campaign, as you say), and he's not trying to kill them, just the target, then unless they are inept, he's going to get stopped, because he's going to fail a save or get grappled and fail his escape checks. Which is going to be hilarious for the players but perhaps not for you.

When I say "mid-tier" challenge, my mind went to a 9th level foe. If you accept the premise of this scenario that because the enemy's experience on the walls gives them either advantage or the players have disadvantage to attack, I think you overestimate their ability to stop him. But terrain, PC's level and spell access all change that.

I feel like you have limited experience with different groups, or maybe have actually never been a player that you think this. I've played and DM'd for 30 years with a lot of different groups and seen a lot of stuff across a lot of RPGs, and I can say with some confidence that players, as a group, do not see "a dragon" and a single humanoid NPC as the same sort of thing in this kind of scenario.

I've played and DM'd across different editions of D&D and other RPG's over 26+ years with different groups and groups with rotating players and I've seen a lot of stuff across a lot of RPG's and I can say with some confidence that I give more credit to players as a group than you seem to and haven't had issues with powerful NPC's like you seem to suggest. shrug

Because you're not thinking like a player. I get it. It sounds cool. It sounds awesome. As a DM, it's exciting (in part because it's almost like being a player - because there's more than a hint of GMPC - especially if you build him rules-legal). We've all been there. But if you as a DM, have never introduced an enemy you thought was awesome the players would respond well to, and have never got a surprising "naughty word this guy in particular" response from the players, one that doesn't reflect him being awesome, then maybe you have lead some sort of charmed DMing life.

I'm thinking about an encounter as a DM. I recognize that players don't like to feel helpless in a situation but I still don't see the distinction between being helpless in the face of a powerful monster vs. helpless in the face of a powerful NPC. If your players are getting mad about the NPC, they should be getting mad about the dragon or giant or whatever thing they can't kill that is wrecking their day.

It doesn't feel at all like "being a player" to me, because I already get to play... literally every other creature and character in the world. Any significant NPC in my games I build so that they're not some generic off the shelf NPC statblock from the NPC section of the MM. Those are for mooks and maybe lieutenants if I'm busy.

Of course, I've had NPC's and scenarios that I thought would turn out one way and went completely sideways with a group. Of course, I've had "f this guy in particular" responses. But it doesn't affect me that much and I certainly don't care if the players don't think something is as cool as I thought it would be... I don't even understand what you're driving at here. Them not thinking an NPC is "awesome" literally has no bearing on if I'm going to do it or not.

Also, I don't play video games.

You are not dumb for thinking this is a good idea. But I do strongly believe - with some actual evidence, both from stuff like ME3 and personal experience with different groups - that "solo ninjas kills the dude you are protecting" or "solo ninja cheesily beats you and runs away" doesn't tend to go down well.

Thanks, I didn't think I was dumb.

I still don't understand how "dragon swoops in and eats the king and flies away" somehow magically goes better than "solo NPC swoops in and kills the king and runs/flies away" for you. They are the exact same scenario, just one runs through the hallways while the players chase/stumble after him and the other rips the hallways open while the players cower in dragon fear.

I do strongly urge you to do the social experiment, though only if you will do it in good faith!

What do you consider "good faith" here? Just so I'm clear.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I recognize that players don't like to feel helpless in a situation but I still don't see the distinction between being helpless in the face of a powerful monster vs. helpless in the face of a powerful NPC.

If you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry, but that's on you. It's a big obvious distinction psychologically, between a massive magical monster, and a single guy who could be a PC. The main difference, if you really can't see anything else is that players realize that they can't easily defeat a dragon, but with a single human, they are unlikely to realize that until after the fact. That means that each failed roll, each round you don't manage to stop him, is going to sting more, and it's going to vex them more. You think that's going to translate into fun. I very much doubt that. If you don't care whether it's fun - well, okay you're "that kind of DM" and yeah fine, then advice is immaterial and this discussion is over.

This goes double if you're giving him Advantage on rolls that he shouldn't necessarily have Advantage on (like if you wouldn't give a PC Advantage there, he definitely shouldn't get it!). He certainly wouldn't have Advantage against Command or Hold Person or the like either, which makes this very fragile and potentially likely to end up with him getting Command'd to the floor then wrestled by PCs whereupon, if he's many levels above them, he may just have to start one-shotting them, which isn't going to impress anyone.

Whereas a dragon or the like cannot be wrestled, and is probably hard to stop with spells, too. This is a fragility peculiar to single, humanoid, size-M (or L/S) non-Legendary enemies.

What do you consider "good faith" here? Just so I'm clear.

Well, saying things like this is bad faith:

I give more credit to players as a group than you seem to and haven't had issues with powerful NPC's like you seem to suggest. shrug

I haven't talked about "powerful NPCs". So that's a strawman. I've talked only specifically about overpowered-ninja-style NPCs. That is a different category to "powerful NPCs" (a highly specific subcategory if you will). That's what I'm trying to convey here. How many OP ninja-type NPCs have you used before? Or seen as a player?

I've seen a wide variety of "powerful NPCs", some unbeatable, go up against PCs. Only two categories have universally provoked derision/disdain/annoyance. Higher-level NPC spellcasters who just CC the naughty word out of everyone all the time (nobody enjoys this) and NPC "overpowered ninja"-types, who tend to be like, obviously a ninja/monk, usually with some kind of wacky over-the-top weapon (which works in the Stormlight books because there are a whole bunch of them), and tend to show off by killing people in front of the PCs (this is not new trope - though wall-running of a literal kind is!). These guys don't go on the "We've got to kill this guy!" list of the players, because they're not fun to engage with. They go on the "Oh naughty word that guy jesus ugh let's hope we never meet him again" list of the players.

What's particularly problematic as well is that these guys usually aren't going to be very possible to stop later on. Well-designed ninja types can, barring bad rolls, escape from pretty much anything forever. Nasty CC types are going to CC a bunch of PCs no matter what (concentration makes this less of an issue in 5E thank goodness).

Re: good faith I'd say lay out what you're going to do here, how you're going to play it, and so on, and then do that, and then report back honestly.

 

[Salthorae]

If you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry, but that's on you. It's a big obvious distinction psychologically, between a massive magical monster, and a single guy who could be a PC. The main difference, if you really can't see anything else is that players realize that they can't easily defeat a dragon, but with a single human, they are unlikely to realize that until after the fact. That means that each failed roll, each round you don't manage to stop him, is going to sting more, and it's going to vex them more. You think that's going to translate into fun. I very much doubt that. If you don't care whether it's fun - well, okay you're "that kind of DM" and yeah fine, then advice is immaterial and this discussion is over.

Maybe I am "that kind of DM"? I guess? I don't know. I don't consider the success/failure/fun/not fun of a campaign entirely on one encounter, no. Not ever single encounter/scenario/scene in a game has to directly translate into "fun" so long as overall the game experience is fun and satisfying for everyone involved.

If the encounter is designed to "hurt" in terms of PC failure, I don't care, no.

But I would rather the PC's interact with a scene rather than just cut scene. It is a shared narrative. I want to know WHAT the PC's try to do to stop something, I want to know HOW the PC's feel in that situation... as reflected by the players statements of actions and those feelings. I can't get those in a cut scene.

I would think that low-level PC's seeing someone running on the walls or ceiling with a glowing sword, might give them pause about their chances vs. that NPC. I certainly would if I were playing a level 1 PC and saw an assassin running on the walls, etc. have immediate doubts about my ability to fight them.

This goes double if you're giving him Advantage on rolls that he shouldn't necessarily have Advantage on (like if you wouldn't give a PC Advantage there, he definitely shouldn't get it!). He certainly wouldn't have Advantage against Command or Hold Person or the like either, which makes this very fragile and potentially likely to end up with him getting Command'd to the floor then wrestled by PCs whereupon, if he's many levels above them, he may just have to start one-shotting them, which isn't going to impress anyone.

I never said giving advantage on saves? I was just referencing back to the OP's encounter concept card that talked about advantage for the assassin or disadvantage for the PC's because of the unconventional nature of 3D combat that the assassin is trained to deal with while they are not. I probably would just do disadvantage on attacks if anything. But that isn't necessarily.... necessary. It's just part of the encounter card that I was again, referencing.

I haven't talked about "powerful NPCs". So that's a strawman. I've talked only specifically about overpowered-ninja-style NPCs. That is a different category to "powerful NPCs" (a highly specific subcategory if you will). That's what I'm trying to convey here. How many OP ninja-type NPCs have you used before? Or seen as a player?

It's not a strawman. I'm not talking about an "overpowered-ninja-style NPC", I'm talking about a NPC who is more powerful than the PCs. If you want to get nitty-gritty with it, I'm talking about a Hexblade Pact of the Blade Warlock with a few invocations and spells that let him walk on the walls/fly. Tht would have proficiency in Wisdom saves and so be more likely to NOT fail those saves vs. specific spells like Command or Hold Person, etc and who has spells at their disposal to get out of a grapple if necessary.

The card specifically says the assassin is after their target only and won't try to harm the PCs (Prologue Szeth, not later Szeth).

You literally counter your own statement here by calling your weirdly specific thing a "subcategory" of Powerful NPCs... so yeah.

I've never seen any before in a game, nor used any. That's why I think it would make for a memorable and fun arc for a game because I've personally never had it.

I've seen a wide variety of "powerful NPCs", some unbeatable, go up against PCs. Only two categories have universally provoked derision/disdain/annoyance. Higher-level NPC spellcasters who just CC the naughty word out of everyone all the time (nobody enjoys this) and NPC "overpowered ninja"-types, who tend to be like, obviously a ninja/monk, usually with some kind of wacky over-the-top weapon (which works in the Stormlight books because there are a whole bunch of them), and tend to show off by killing people in front of the PCs (this is not new trope - though wall-running of a literal kind is!). These guys don't go on the "We've got to kill this guy!" list of the players, because they're not fun to engage with. They go on the "Oh naughty word that guy jesus ugh let's hope we never meet him again" list of the players.

I'm not talking about a "Wacky over-the-top weapon" here? I'm literally talking about a Pact of the Blade warlock with their pact weapon... so yeah. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this hypothetical NPC bad guy who is Szeth-like as "overpowered" when you can literally build one from standard rules with the standard array.

More powerful than players? Sure for now. Overpowered, I don't think so.

Also, it's on the DM to work with the players and the story to have a compelling reason for PC's to do ANYTHING. This shouldn't be any different than your hypothetical Dragon encounter. Dragons' shouldn't naturally go on the "we've got to kill that guy!" list of the players' either, they should for any sane character go onthe "f that guy, jeez ugh, let's hope we never see that dragon again." list of the players'

What's particularly problematic as well is that these guys usually aren't going to be very possible to stop later on. Well-designed ninja types can, barring bad rolls, escape from pretty much anything forever. Nasty CC types are going to CC a bunch of PCs no matter what (concentration makes this less of an issue in 5E thank goodness).

I assume the rapid rise of PC's in abilities outstrips the NPCs.

So while this assassin took years to hone their craft and rise to the lofty power level they're at when the PC's first meet them. They are relatively static/plateaued in their growth, so by the time the PC's meet them again (end of the chapter/arc/whatever) they're now level appropriate. Maybe a hard encounter but level-appropriate now. If it's level-appropriate, then the PC's should be able to either kill or stop them from escaping through their very many more tricks that they have up their sleeve now: flight of their own, counterspell, etc. etc. etc.).

Re: good faith I'd say lay out what you're going to do here, how you're going to play it, and so on, and then do that, and then report back honestly.

I'm not DM'ing for my group right now, just playing, so it might be a while before I get a chance to do this, but I will do it when I'm up.

What I'm going to do is exactly what we talked about.

A 9th level Hexblade Pact of the Blade Warlock with their abilities walking on walls, etc. as an Assassin that the PC's have no warning about will appear and attempt to assassinate someone they are either friends with or paid to defend. They will likely succeed in that attempt and do their darndest to get away cleanly.

Players are creative so they might not getaway. it also depends on how many NPC guard types are around, etc as well as Action Economy, which far more so than anything else, is ever the foe of single NPC enemies