My players are going to hate me...

[Lonely Tylenol]

Wait, wait, am I being told that ranged save-or-die is somehow unfair?

At the same level that you can have save-or-become-a-toad? Or save-or-paralyze? Or save-or-dominate?

I'll admit it might be quite a bit early (spells don't do it 'till about another 3 levels)

The party's level 9? Then they have access to Phantasmal Killer, which is the lowest-level save-or-die spell there is. Of course, that allows two saves, but it's still save-or-save-or-die. Baleful Polymorph is a 5th level spell. A ranged save-or-die is not out of line for a 10th level character to have.

Really, I think people are getting their panties twisted over this a bit too much. Are characters supposed to live in a world where there are no consequences for their actions? They've done wrong by an evil empire, and the empire put out a contract on them. The assassin looks like he's going to be a thorn in their side for a while, now that they know he's after them. Mage gets raised, party gets paranoid, much furtive looking over shoulders ensues. Eventually they'll figure out how to spot him (Arcane Sight to notice the silence and invisibility spells creeping up on them, perhaps? Divinations to determine when the next attack will occur, etc.) and waste his loathsome self. I think they'll have fun trying to figure out how to trap him.

I do notice that whenever a story comes up on the boards that involves a save-or-die effect, everyone chimes in with "I'm glad I'm not in your campaign, because DMs should never use save-or-die effects because it's not fun and unfair and makes kittens cry." Well, save-or-die effects are there to be used by PC and NPC alike. What's good for the goose is good enough to cook that goose. I really don't think that people actually hate save-or-die effects that much. They just like histrionics.

In this case, the character failed his save fair and square, the party was being incautious after annoying the largest evil organization in their area, the bad guys were being careful, and he gets raised almost immediately. What's the problem?

edit: And why is everyone claiming he didn't roll for the assassin? Did he say he just fudged the assassin's rolls in order to make his scene happen? I don't remember reading that. Interesting that so many people just assume that's what happened... :\

 

[DonTadow]

Sniper's Eye, Complete Adventurer, p. 156.
Level 4 Assassin spell that, among other things, allows the caster to make a death attack with a ranged weapon, within 60 feet.

I meant feat wise. You're talking about a single spell you can't get until you're at least 13th level. By then there are a dozen deadly save or die spells, so it really isn't overpowered. But there are no feats that allow it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

PCs die. Get over it, people.

Ask the player if he wants you to let his character die? Ugh.
Not allowing the NPCs to do things that the PCs can do because it isn't fun? Ugh.

KM, go for it. It's fine. Actually, poison the bullet just in case.

 

[DonTadow]

PCs die. Get over it, people.

Ask the player if he wants you to let his character die? Ugh.
Not allowing the NPCs to do things that the PCs can do because it isn't fun? Ugh.

KM, go for it. It's fine. Actually, poison the bullet just in case.

Did you read the scenerio or see a great opportunity to spread your anti-pc propraganda ?

The situation here is show the pcs died. Yeah pcs died third, but is it any fun for the pcs to die without any defense against it. Shoot in that case I can open a session with a pc knocked off every week, all I got to do is write some really great scenerio.

There's a big difference between the pcs initiating the "asassignation" and the DM doing it. Again, the DM would know of the pcs attempt before hand, whether its a whole week or only minutes. The DM would make the pc go through every step of the hit, from attempting to see his target in the inn, to getting a good aim, to making all the rolls to making other skill checks. In this case the player essentially had no interaction with the scenerio, they were essentially just there. The DM was so into his scenerio he didnt think about other obvious things such as "this is a crowded inn and there's a window right there." The bullet would have slowed once it hit the window and the pcs would have had a second to react from the glass breaking. Plus in the middle of winter, if the Inn had a warm fireplace, those windows were pretty fogged up.

Yeah players die but the fun of d and d is them dying by their own undoing, not the DMs.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well, most posts have been complaining about PC death and save-or-die effects being bad. "You have an assassin plotting to kill a PC, how awful!" and "You're abusing your power as a DM, why not just send a balor after a 1st level party?" type stuff. That is completely unfair, IMO, and a DM who feels the need to give all PCs a passive chance to overcome every scenario is doing his players a disservice, IMO.

My assumption is that if the PCs act in a paranoid mannar, then it will be more difficult for the assassin to pull off his plan. Maybe I'm putting my method of operation too much into this, but when I plan a session, I detail the NPCs plans and how they will work out as if the PCs do nothing. Then, as the game progresses, I play out the NPCs based on what the PCs are now doing, if that makes any sense.

So, lets say the PCs know that they've angered an evil empire who is out for their lives and act accordingly. They actively make preparations to keep a look out for enemies. They set up watch in the inn as they sleep. They do things that will make the assassin have a hard time with them. I don't think KM plans to ignore these kinds of things. However, if the PCs do nothing to prepare against an assassin, and one of their heads gets blown off becasue of it, my sympathy is not with the PC or his or her Player.

EDIT: Personally, I DM under the general assumption that "Town is Safe" for most of my games and run the game accordingly. However, I know this isn't for everyone, and while, yes, my style is in conflict with that aspect of the scenario, I'm not going to think others should be holden to my belief that the PCs should usually feel safe in towns/cities.

 

[Numion]

Whats good for the NPCs is not necessarily good for the PCs. A PC is fundamentally different from an NPC. NPC getting killed at random doesn't affect anyones play - a dead PC puts at least a dent in the players evening. So I wouldn't excuse using sure fire tactics on PCs just because they can do it too ..

.. but I once killed half of my groups PCs in their sleep (3/6), so what do I know? (I did give them very easy listening checks after each CdG, but the dice robbed them .. it was the dice, I'm telling ya )

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Did you read the scenerio or see a great opportunity to spread your anti-pc propraganda ?

Do you really take the little scenario as it is given in the first post as the detailed in-game description KM gave to his players?
It's actually interesting how many posters on this thread simply "assume" certain things happened, like KM not rolling the checks for the assassin, KM simply fudging the dice rolls, KM doing this, KM leaving out that. All from the description of a scene from an in-game point of view. Either lots of people looked over his shoulder during that game, or a lot of groundless assumptions are made.
It's equally fascinating how easily a lot of "small detail excuses" all of a sudden pop up why that ranged death attack shouldn't have been successful. Fogged-up window, force of the attack being taken off/shot being skewed by the window pane, the feat itself being broken, and of course the best of all: it's SO unfair.
And why? Because the recipient of that death attack was a PC. Because a DM worked out the consequences of the PC's actions, namely an evil kingdom with vast resources sending a professional assassin. A PC on the DM's hand, in other words, not an NPC with NPC classes. That asssassin uses the tools he has available to catch the party of PCs with their pants down to their knees. They feel safe, secure, maybe even protected because the ruler of the city is on their side. And then he lets them know that they aren't. In a very bloody, final way.
Now KM already stated that resurrecting the character will cost only the money. So all this scene did, in the end, is warn the PCs and the players that their enemy is crafty, has the same means as the group, and is very very good with what he does. If I was in that group, even if it had been my spellcasting character, I'd feel
a) scared and paranoid
b) peeved because I obviously let my defenses down enough to allow this hit to happen
not in that particular order, though. The last thing that would go through my mind would be "Oh how unfair my DM is, and how boring this game has become, and my next character will be a bland thing because he will kill him off anyway whenever he wants." This hit is a beginning for quite a chapter, if KM plays this assassin right, and the group will probably feel like heroes just for getting to him when they got him.

I can only quote John Wick here, who said that

...players are a masochistic lot. They want you to run their characters through the grinder. They want you to take advantage of their character's weaknesses, to pummel them mercilessly and leave them in a bloody pulp. However - and here's the tricky part - they also want to win.

In this case, the bloody pulp resulting from the moment's weakness is done. Now the "make them feel like heroes" part can begin.

 

[DonTadow]

Do you really take the little scenario as it is given in the first post as the detailed in-game description KM gave to his players?
It's actually interesting how many posters on this thread simply "assume" certain things happened, like KM not rolling the checks for the assassin, KM simply fudging the dice rolls, KM doing this, KM leaving out that. All from the description of a scene from an in-game point of view. Either lots of people looked over his shoulder during that game, or a lot of groundless assumptions are made.
It's equally fascinating how easily a lot of "small detail excuses" all of a sudden pop up why that ranged death attack shouldn't have been successful. Fogged-up window, force of the attack being taken off/shot being skewed by the window pane, the feat itself being broken, and of course the best of all: it's SO unfair.
And why? Because the recipient of that death attack was a PC. Because a DM worked out the consequences of the PC's actions, namely an evil kingdom with vast resources sending a professional assassin. A PC on the DM's hand, in other words, not an NPC with NPC classes. That asssassin uses the tools he has available to catch the party of PCs with their pants down to their knees. They feel safe, secure, maybe even protected because the ruler of the city is on their side. And then he lets them know that they aren't. In a very bloody, final way.
Now KM already stated that resurrecting the character will cost only the money. So all this scene did, in the end, is warn the PCs and the players that their enemy is crafty, has the same means as the group, and is very very good with what he does. If I was in that group, even if it had been my spellcasting character, I'd feel
a) scared and paranoid
b) peeved because I obviously let my defenses down enough to allow this hit to happen
not in that particular order, though. The last thing that would go through my mind would be "Oh how unfair my DM is, and how boring this game has become, and my next character will be a bland thing because he will kill him off anyway whenever he wants." This hit is a beginning for quite a chapter, if KM plays this assassin right, and the group will probably feel like heroes just for getting to him when they got him.

I can only quote John Wick here, who said that In this case, the bloody pulp resulting from the moment's weakness is done. Now the "make them feel like heroes" part can begin.

Ok, as the description is read the pc was asked for a fortitude save before the shot was fired, before the glass broke, before the assaisgn made the shot. It's very obvious that the DM rushed through the scenerio because he was so happy to come up with this scenerio. All he needed at the start of the scenerio was a bothed fortitude save and he was in there. You can almost see him salivating in the post. I'm not saying he didn't make all the rolls. Hell, he probably made all the rolls well before the scenerio and got all giddy once his attack beat the pcs AC. I'm saying his overeagerness to move through this scenerio caused him to screw his players of the right to defend themselves. The scenerio reads like boxtext at a convention rather than interactive storytelling.

The only thing that saves this campaign is the even more broken rule of having free death in a game (and having a great npc who can make resserurcts happen cheaper) . That allows the players to not give a care if their character is killed, maimed or turned into chiapets. The only reason KM didn't here anyone complain about the scenerio in his party is because they've already become complacent with not really caring about death. For DMs whom care about player backgrounds and weaving pcs into the story, this scenerio woudln't have worked. As previously stated, my players wouldn't provide any backgrounds of note and caution would be thrown to the wind. My thinking would be
A. the DM is going to kill me when he gets ready to anyway, so why bother being paranoid.
B. even if this character dies he'll be back anyway or i'll just roll up another.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Ok, as the description is read the pc was asked for a fortitude save before the shot was fired, before the glass broke, before the assaisgn made the shot. It's very obvious that the DM rushed through the scenerio because he was so happy to come up with this scenerio. All he needed at the start of the scenerio was a bothed fortitude save and he was in there. You can almost see him salivating in the post. I'm not saying he didn't make all the rolls. Hell, he probably made all the rolls well before the scenerio and got all giddy once his attack beat the pcs AC. I'm saying his overeagerness to move through this scenerio caused him to screw his players of the right to defend themselves. The scenerio reads like boxtext at a convention rather than interactive storytelling.

You know, I've listened to players bragging and gloating about their PC's actions and successes...and yes, it sounded exactly like KM's description, because they were equally happy that they came up with a fabulous plan, managed to pull it off and get away with their PCs alive. I usually don't imagine them each sitting with a bucket between their feet to catch the surplus of saliva while they sneak rule glitches past their DM. Neither am I accusing them of forgetting some things in the rush to pull it off just because they are eager to tell me about their success. Especially when I wasn't around to watch the dice roll, hear the players talk and see the whole scene. Do you usually do that, or is it just because it's a DM wishing to share one of his successes?

And yes, in the situation as described, all the DM finally needs to know is if the PC manages to make his Fortitude save vs. the death attack, so why should he ask for more? The window broke under the influence of the Silence spell, after all. And the assassin didn't have to press his face against the window, as the spell has a 15' radius from the person cast on.

 

[DonTadow]

You know, I've listened to players bragging and gloating about their PC's actions and successes...and yes, it sounded exactly like KM's description, because they were equally happy that they came up with a fabulous plan, managed to pull it off and get away with their PCs alive. I usually don't imagine them each sitting with a bucket between their feet to catch the surplus of saliva while they sneak rule glitches past their DM. Neither am I accusing them of forgetting some things in the rush to pull it off just because they are eager to tell me about their success. Especially when I wasn't around to watch the dice roll, hear the players talk and see the whole scene. Do you usually do that, or is it just because it's a DM wishing to share one of his successes?

And yes, in the situation as described, all the DM finally needs to know is if the PC manages to make his Fortitude save vs. the death attack, so why should he ask for more? The window broke under the influence of the Silence spell, after all. And the assassin didn't have to press his face against the window, as the spell has a 15' radius from the person cast on.

You seem to be assuming a lot of things in lue of defending this DM vs. Player mentality, which is not the essence of the game. The more I read this post, the more disgusted I am. Its like "Look at the creative ways I can kill pcs without them knowing until their dead ". It's really not an accomplishment. Any DM on this website on any given day without a single rule change can do this creatively at any time.

The role of the DM is to be manage the rules and come up with great stories, not sit in your basement thinking of ways to screw pcs.

Yes PCs should be gloating whenever they get a chance to outsmart the DM. The DM has infinitive methods, tactics, weapons and environments to throw at the pcs whom are limited to basically whats on their character sheet that they "may" get to change during level up once a month. The DM knows all the players weakeness, strengths, hit die, and stats. Its like defending some 300 lbs who is gloating for putting a major hit on a 80 lb 5th grade pee wee player. It just doesnt work the same way .

And then the DM ignores the rules and environment (along with the pcs) to make it work. All a silence spell does is silence the caster, especially if he's shooting from far away. And then theres the weather, where exactly the pcs are sitting and who else is in the inn.

I"m betting just about every dm on this site has had a pc death in the last six month but none were as unfun and unfair as this one described.