Which order to resolve poison and death attacks?

[domino]

Let's say that an assassain hits a character with a death attack, with a poisoned blade, that does con damage.

Do you resolve the poison damage before the death attack, thus making the death attack more likely to succeed with a lower fort save, or do you do it afterwards, thus making it a waste of a death attack?

Or, is there some mechanics reason why you can't do both in the same round?

 

[Kobold Stew]

The death attack is calculated first, I'd say--it is something the assasin has been preparing for, studying his victim in order for it to have its effect. The effect is, effectively, instantaneous, and not dependent on poison entering the bloodstream.

I don't understand how a success can be considered a "waste of a death attack" if it kills someone. If it doesn't, you still have the poison as backup. Forsight is not waste.

Kobold Stew.

 

[dcollins]

DMG under "Assassin: Death Attack" says:

If the victim's saving throw succeeds, the attack is just a normal sneak attack.

So my reading would be: (1) resolve death attack, if it fails (2) resolve an otherwise normal sneak attack.

 

[Starglim]

I'd resolve the death attack first on the basis that it's the result of the actual, immediate damage done by the weapon. The poison is a secondary effect that takes a short time (at least a few seconds, IRL) to occur.

I wouldn't call this a waste of a death attack, but it could well be a waste of an expensive dose of poison. That's the cost of lacking self-confidence.

 

[Elephant]

I wouldn't call this a waste of a death attack, but it could well be a waste of an expensive dose of poison. That's the cost of lacking self-confidence.

Or careful, redundant planning to guarantee results.

 

[moritheil]

If you really want it to happen, you have to pay a little more. Death attack, then the rest.

 

[Chorn]

I wouldn't call this a waste of a death attack, but it could well be a waste of an expensive dose of poison. That's the cost of lacking self-confidence.

Or maybe the assassin is a plain sadistic bastard that used the paralyzing form of his Death Attack so he could watch as the target dies slowly and painfully from the poison. He would be the type of assassin who really enjoys his work.

 

[domino]

Or maybe the assassin is a plain sadistic bastard that used the paralyzing form of his Death Attack so he could watch as the target dies slowly and painfully from the poison. He would be the type of assassin who really enjoys his work.

Which is a not very good assassain after all, as that gives precious rounds to make fort saves to survive, or allow people to come to the rescue.

 

[Chorn]

You're thinking of hold person's special property of allowing saves to end the paralysis each round. Paralysis in general doesn't allow any additional saves.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So my reading would be: (1) resolve death attack, if it fails (2) resolve an otherwise normal sneak attack.

Interesting. I don't read it to mean that any other effects on the attack are nullified if the Death Attack fails, but rather that a failed Death Attack is still a normal Sneak Attack. With no connection to other effects that might also be attached to the attack.

My personal preference is to resolve the Death Attack first. First of all, if the Death Attack succeeds you can normally ignore any extra effects as superfluous, so it saves time. Secondly, it favors the PCs (not allowing effects that reduce the Fort Save, such as the poison mentioned in the OP.)

RAW, I don't believe there is an order of resolution regarding such effects.