Using an assassins death-attack fairly

[Reynard]

I would, however, avoid using logic like "I shouldn't use my Death Attack on the barbarian because he's got a better fort save." Metagame logic isn't "fair" IMO.

I disagree, to an extent anyway. 'Metagaming' is a part of role-playing. Since the mechanics affect the 'physics' of the world, using that knowledge is a way of making decisions in-character that are consistent with the way the world works. i mean, you wouldn't call it metagaming if someone adjusted their movement to avoid an AoO, would you? Same thing.

Now, using out of character knowledge (by a player or DM), that's wrong and unfair.

 

[Kumaiti]

I have one of my most beloved chars killed by a half-orc assassin with a death attack... It took me many hours checking spell lists (she was a wizard), choosing magic items and so on, and she died out of death attack.

It wasn't FUN, but it wasn't so bad. She was growing too overconfident and so was the whole party. It was good to show that we should expect non-standard tactics.
Another good side is that a char would be forgotten one or two weeks after the campaign finished became the unforgettable "mage who was killed by the death attack of an assassin".

 

[Altalazar]

I think if there is some way to get ressurection, then it isn't so bad - especially if it is a story way rather than a 'put the resurrection on my gold card' way. Then it becomes part of the story.

But I think it is best when it is tied into the plot, so that there is a reason for the attack that the players caused and could, perhaps expect, or at least understand their role in 'inviting' it after the fact.

I think it would be a poor way just to introduce a new hook - getting killed without a save or anything you can do to prevent it when you did nothing to provoke it and had no reason to expect it just isn't fun.

 

[Chaldfont]

One meta-game reason to do this is if your PCs level-spread is to great. Maybe you have one PC who is a couple levels higher than the others because they have been raised so many times? Target him for assassination to bring the party back to parity.

Just don't tell your player that's why you did it. It seems a poor reward for being a better survivor than the rest of the party.

 

[Altalazar]

One meta-game reason to do this is if your PCs level-spread is to great. Maybe you have one PC who is a couple levels higher than the others because they have been raised so many times? Target him for assassination to bring the party back to parity.

Just don't tell your player that's why you did it. It seems a poor reward for being a better survivor than the rest of the party.

I think that's a horrible reason to do that - talk about heavy-handed. And talk about penalizing success. I'd quit the game if a DM did that.

 

[KRT]

One meta-game reason to do this is if your PCs level-spread is to great. Maybe you have one PC who is a couple levels higher than the others because they have been raised so many times? Target him for assassination to bring the party back to parity.

Just don't tell your player that's why you did it. It seems a poor reward for being a better survivor than the rest of the party.

I think that's called cheese DMing. If I was the player who had played well and survived and the Assassin picked me then I would be a little suspicious. Cheese DMing is low, take the high road my friend, its more rewarding for all involved.

 

[The_Gneech]

One meta-game reason to do this is if your PCs level-spread is to great. Maybe you have one PC who is a couple levels higher than the others because they have been raised so many times? Target him for assassination to bring the party back to parity.

Just don't tell your player that's why you did it. It seems a poor reward for being a better survivor than the rest of the party.

Actually, if you use the CR-based XP distribution, this problem is self-correcting (lower-level characters gain XP faster than higher-level ones for the same fight) -- targeting "the guy who ain't been killt yet" is probably not a wise idea.

-The Gneech

 

[Chaldfont]

Actually, if you use the CR-based XP distribution, this problem is self-correcting (lower-level characters gain XP faster than higher-level ones for the same fight) -- targeting "the guy who ain't been killt yet" is probably not a wise idea.

-The Gneech

That's not entirely true in pratice. I've had a PC 1 1/2 levels above the rest of the party for like 5 levels now.

This may be cheese DMing--thats why you don't tell the player your motivations. If having a party with a big level-spread is messing up the game, you've got to do something about it. That's just one way to do it.

I do lots of stuff like this. My players trust me to run a fun game. That's why they've been coming back every Thursday night for two years.

 

[Corsair]

I think that's a horrible reason to do that - talk about heavy-handed. And talk about penalizing success. I'd quit the game if a DM did that.

Holy drama queen batman!

If the assassin is coming anyways as part of a plot, and the plot isn't terribly picky who dies, why WOULDN'T the assassin go after the strongest person in the group, to weaken them? Also look at the other side of it: How will the lower level character, who has a lower fort save, feel about being killed and dropped ANOTHER level behind?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I disagree, to an extent anyway. 'Metagaming' is a part of role-playing. Since the mechanics affect the 'physics' of the world, using that knowledge is a way of making decisions in-character that are consistent with the way the world works. i mean, you wouldn't call it metagaming if someone adjusted their movement to avoid an AoO, would you? Same thing.

I disagree with your disagreement. In my game worlds, the mechanics are used to define the PCs alone. Other folks in the game world, NPC folks, don't necesarily follow the same rules. Most of them don't have levels and classes. They're just farmers, or merchants, or hunters.

So there's an assassin, and he's been sent after a party of one lean hunter/forest-type guy, one thin, old priest of yadda-yadda, and a virile, healthy-looking young scholar of some sort, who looks built like he might be taking martial arts or something in his spare time. Who does he target?

IMC, the assassin will have killed plenty of folks beforehand, and experience will tell him that lean guys and old guys tend to die more easily than healthy young guys with washboard abs. So he'd attack either the hunter or the priest. In a metagame sense, that means he's making the suboptimal choice, since both the ranger and the cleric get good fort saves. But the assassin doesn't know or understand that concept. He doesn't have metagame vision, only game vision.

In a campaign where everything is classed and everything follows D&D conventions in such a complete way as to become the "physics of the world" then sure, I suppose. But I think it's a fallacy to assume that every game, or even most games, are run that way. I use the rules to define those parts of the game that need such definition to adjudicate conflict. They conform to my world, my world isn't shaped to conform to the rules.