My players are going to hate me...

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

On the contrary, I'm not assuming anything...not even a DM vs. Player mentality. I also don't try to read a certain mentality, mindset or behaviour into the description of a scene from a game I wasn't part of. Especially not on the internet. I'm also not insinuating that a DM, in order to pull of an idea he had "to screw over his players", rushes things, fudges rolls or outright cheats to get his jollies off. I'm taking the description as it is. I don't feel terribly disturbed by a ranged death attack ability. I also don't feel terribly disturbed about an NPC who behaves as professional as any PC can, and managing to pull it off.
I'm defending the integrity of a fellow DM who, in my eyes, hasn't done anything wrong, and whom I can't prove otherwise. For the simple reason that I'm a DM, too, and would hate to be called a cheater and a PC-killer by people who didn't sit in my game, just on the fact that I described a memorable scene from my game where the players, for a change, didn't have the upper hand.

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.

Silence
Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a creature, object, or point in space
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text or none (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes; see text or no (object)
Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object. The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any. Items in a creature’s possession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not. This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks.

No rules were changed. Shooting from the dark into a bright room doesn't carry a penalty, as far as I know. And from the description, the PC killed sat in line-of-sight of the assassin, who was invisible, outside, and not further than 19 feet away from the window. A pane of glass 1 inch thick takes away 2 points of damage from a successful sneak attack before it breaks. And the weather would have come into play if you had more than moderate winds and a snowstorm, fog or heavy rain impairing visibility. Which didn't seem to be the case. Or were accounted for with the attack roll.

And saying a DM isn't allowed to gloat, because he's "omnipotent" as far as the game is concerned is simply silly. A DM is one person only, no matter what tools he potentially has at his beck and call. In the end, he's a player, too, and as entitled to a little bit of spotlight as every player is. If you want to count it down, you have only one DM brain, but a group of player brains, and I know from my time behind the screen where the advantage usually lied if I didn't keep them all occupied.

 

[DragonTurtle]

My players are going to hate me...

Am I reading this differently then other people? It sounds like the scenario hasn't even happened yet. The DM has a scenario planned, who knows if the spellcaster will take the seat next to the window, maybe he is by the door 35' away making the attack useless, or he goes up to his room to study spells, etc...

The way I read it, is the DM has created a foe, has a place for an ambush picked out and some tactics planned, and the players will unpredictably do something to botch the whole scenario

He wanted to share his tactics, and was criticized by describing one way the scenario might work out. I do not see this as the character writing into the narrative that a character automatically dies, heck the assassin might roll a 1, the spellcaster a 20, etc...

I am sure KM appreciates the advice and viewpoints from everyone, but don't hang him for a crime he has yet to commit.

 

[The_Magician]

Oh, yeah. I really AM assuming the DM didnt make all the necessary rolls for his assassin NPC. Why am I assuming? Because the information isnt in his text. And they way it is written, it gives the impression to me(and I can see to others as well) that the encounter wasn't a fair one. Assuming things is not wrong. I dont have to check my brother's DNA everytime I see him, or get his fingerprints, so I am sure it IS him infront of me. I will just assume that if it looks and smells like my brother, that it is my brother.

We all do it all the time, every single day of our lives. There is no such thing as complte information. And there is no such thing as sending a message and having the receiver to fully understand it. It is impossible. So yeah, we have to put pieces together and interpret messages all the time, and they way I interpret the messages in this thread is that teh encounter wasnt fair. I dont care about PCs dying (that's not what people are talking about, here), as I dont care about DMs gloating. The problem lies when the PCs die unfairly and when DMs gloat about using their "powers" unfairly.

YOu are damn right the thread only got this reaction because it was the PCs that died, and not an NPC. A PC that died in a way interpreted by many as unfair. And people are not wrong to assume it was unfair. That is how they are reading it and interpreting it. Here is another assumption. I assume the OP glotated about himself in this thread waiting for attention and taps on his back(Oh well, you cant blame people to think differently from you.). Anything wrong with that? Not at all! Heck, I do it all the time. Who doesn't like a little attention? Do I think he is a lousy DM? No, I dont even know him or how he DMs! Do I think he killed that PC unfairly? You bet, baby. And I feel so positive it was unfair that I would have a hard time believing him, if he came to the forums and said he made all the necessary rolls for his assassin.

So yeah, defend the scenario if you want, tell people they are wrong, that they are assuming things. It wont change the fact that a lot of people interpreted the situation that way. Myself included. And the world keeps spinning...

 

[Sledge]

Okay ignoring the weirdness of house rules etc I see 2 problems with the proposed scene (which hasn't happened yet as far as I can see. 1: assassinating 1 character doesn't remove the party. 2: Assassinating a character who will be up and alive within a week or so is pointless. There are better targets to be found. As this doesn't really affect the party at all there just isn't any point to it, besides trying to laugh at your players. You have to think of what the assassin's goals are, not just to annoy the party.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Assuming things is not wrong.

Nope, but accusing somebody of a wrongdoing and judging him on assumptions only is wrong. And just because people don't want to hear it, or don't care doesn't mean I should stop telling that to them.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Okay ignoring the weirdness of house rules etc I see 2 problems with the proposed scene (which hasn't happened yet as far as I can see. 1: assassinating 1 character doesn't remove the party. 2: Assassinating a character who will be up and alive within a week or so is pointless. There are better targets to be found. As this doesn't really affect the party at all there just isn't any point to it, besides trying to laugh at your players. You have to think of what the assassin's goals are, not just to annoy the party.

I think KM already pointed out why the assassin might think it a viable tactic. And as another poster already pointed out, professionals do make mistakes. Maybe in this case not in the execution of the assassination, but in the evaluation of the target's means to negate the result.

By the way, DragonTurtle might be on to something...I wonder if this scene actually has already happened, or if KM just gave a rough description of an idea he has, and it hasn't played out at all yet...

 

[The_Magician]

Nope, but accusing somebody of a wrongdoing and judging him on assumptions only is wrong. And just because people don't want to hear it, or don't care doesn't mean I should stop telling that to them.

I never said people dont want to hear it, neither that you should stop. Just saying it is normal for people to interpret things differently.

And I disagree. I think everyone here has the right to voice their opinions. The OP chose to share his post with the community and the community has the right to read it, interpret it in the way they can, and voice their opinions. I dont think it is right to offend the OP and I didnt see anyone doing that. On the other hand, people are entitled to judge his text in anyway they want and to voice their opinions. If lots of people think it is an unfair situation, tough. That's what they think wiht the information the OP gave them. If others think he is right, that's is also cool.

If people didnt have the right to make assumptions, we all would have to send private messages to OPs, asking them for a more elaborate post so they could then analyse it and just then... make an assumption/judgement and voice their opinions.

 

[DonTadow]

On the contrary, I'm not assuming anything...not even a DM vs. Player mentality. I also don't try to read a certain mentality, mindset or behaviour into the description of a scene from a game I wasn't part of. Especially not on the internet. I'm also not insinuating that a DM, in order to pull of an idea he had "to screw over his players", rushes things, fudges rolls or outright cheats to get his jollies off. I'm taking the description as it is. I don't feel terribly disturbed by a ranged death attack ability. I also don't feel terribly disturbed about an NPC who behaves as professional as any PC can, and managing to pull it off.
I'm defending the integrity of a fellow DM who, in my eyes, hasn't done anything wrong, and whom I can't prove otherwise. For the simple reason that I'm a DM, too, and would hate to be called a cheater and a PC-killer by people who didn't sit in my game, just on the fact that I described a memorable scene from my game where the players, for a change, didn't have the upper hand.

But the DM didn't cast the spell on the window and that area, he cast the spell on himself. Heck if he would have cast it on the window or the area of the window i am betting a number of people would have taken notice as a whole portion of the room suddenly fell really quiet.

Also there's no such thing as ranged death. It's broken. That's why you dont even see anything similiar to it in spell form for an assasain until 13th level. The DM even says that he has a made up house rule to allow ranged death attacks.

The KM also goes a bit of a ways to describe what he did to acheive his "ultimate feat" which I"m confident how he performed the maneuver. He even goes as far to explain the action used and the roll of the pc against the fatiquge. I'm pretty sure because he included the pc's fortitude roll that the fortitude roll was the only roll made by the pcs during the entire encounter. As a matter of fact, if you read the text, it is not a dm telling it to us "not in the game." It sounds like box text KM specifically wrote for the scenerio.

I do question the integrity of any DM whom uses his omnipotent power to screw and kill pcs and, instead of using the creativity to come up with challenging encounters, uses it to write nice prose to read during the screwing.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Uh... huh...

Thread title in future tense = this hasn't happened yet.

Also there's no such thing as ranged death. It's broken. That's why you dont even see anything similiar to it in spell form for an assasain until 13th level. The DM even says that he has a made up house rule to allow ranged death attacks.

I would wonder what kind of players would want ranged death attacks allowed in the game, then not expect it to be used on them. Again, no sympathy for players who bring these things upon themselves.

I do question the integrity of any DM whom uses his omnipotent power to screw and kill pcs and, instead of using the creativity to come up with challenging encounters, uses it to write nice prose to read during the screwing.

First, how is this a case of DM using omnipotent powers? I see it as a case of a royal assassin who has been charged with killing some serious thorns. Secondly, why do you think the players will have no choice to avoid the death?

 

[Arc]

The debate as to whether or not this mechanic and plan is "fair" to the player or not seems rather moot at this point. Depending on your preference in gaming, it's very each to choose either side and be quite well justified. Maybe what we should be doing is offering suggestions for improvement to this, or alternatives that may be just as cool, but aren't necessarily as "railroady."

So far, the basic idea is that the Empire is sending an assassin after the PCs. He's a smart guy, is well prepared, and isn't going to do the stupid villian thing and give himself away before he gets his chance. All well and good, but maybe we can improve this more. If he's smart enough to recognize the PCs, he'll also realize that their alliance with the ogres is very dangerous. If he can take out the entire party, that's great, but difficult for him to do alone. If he can get the ogres to turn on their new friends... that's even better.

Howabout this: Our invisible assassin goes up to the window and studies for 3 rounds one of the ogres who has a connection to the Ogre Mage (justification: he's well dressed, seems to be respected by the other ogres, whatever you feel is necessary). He opens up a tiny hole in the window with a glass cutter (for Line of Effect and the pistol shot), and casts Major Image off of a scroll (UMD) onto one of the party members who's sitting by himself. Suddenly, the party rogue whips out a pistol and headshots the brother of the Ogre king. Listen checks to determine where the sound comes from, with circumstance penalties for it being a noisy room. Even if the party passes and realizes it wasn't the rogue... not all the ogres will. Roll initiative for the combat with the ogres, and on the first round, our assassin starts summoning as many small fire elementals as he can into the attic of the inn. After the building starts burning, he retreats to his maximum range in view of the main exit, casts silence on himself, and starts taking potshots at any party member who runs outside.

This situation does require a listen check or two before the action starts, so it gives perhaps one or two of the party members a heads up, but makes stopping the events still very difficult. Fair to the players, but still pretty damn mean to them.

Now, instead of a "make a fort save and wonder who killed you" situation, which might provide about 10 minutes of wonder as to what happened, and then a resigned search for a rez, we have the party fighting its own allies inside of a burning building. The bard's making hurried diplomacy checks (at that -20 modifier to reduce to a full round action), the rest of the party is in combat with the ogres (and possibly with the rogue, since they saw him do it), and it's getting very, very hot all of a sudden. Which one sounds more fun?

This is just one random idea, which would definitely need a fair bit of tweaking, depending on the inn's location, the town's defenses, etc. Still, there are probably a lot more good ideas out there that offer constructive alternatives, instead of negative criticism.