Question for Assassin's

303 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hello all, I have a question regarding one of my Assassin feats.  I have inexorable shroud, and in the wording its hard to say, but, can you transfer 2 shrouds even if you used them on the target?  For example, I have 3 or 4 shrouds on a target, I expend the shrouds resulting in the targets death.  Can I still transfer 2 shrouds or is it just if I have shrouds on the target and one of my allies kills the target?   Please let me know if you have a answer for me, thanks for your time. 
Hello all, I have a question regarding one of my Assassin feats.  I have inexorable shroud, and in the wording its hard to say, but, can you transfer 2 shrouds even if you used them on the target?  For example, I have 3 or 4 shrouds on a target, I expend the shrouds resulting in the targets death.  Can I still transfer 2 shrouds or is it just if I have shrouds on the target and one of my allies kills the target?   Please let me know if you have a answer for me, thanks for your time. 

The Shrouds vanish as you Invoke them - and they're still "the same Shrouds" that were on the target, if that makes sense.

So no, they don't move.
Thank you, helps alot.  Wish they could though lol.
I just wish part of the shroud power was the abillity to put two shrouds on a target within range when you roll initiative. Turn one, put a third shroud, possibly use a once per encounter stack an extra shroud abillity, then invoke all four on the first attack of the encounter. Would boost the basic damage mechanics of the class, and boost what is added to the class via various feats and items.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
The shrouds vanish prior to the target hitting 0, so no. The phrasing on Assassin's Shroud is stilted enough that DM's with a laxer view of timing may be silly enough to let it work though.



I disagree, and the timing seems pretty clear.

   Before you make an attack roll against the target, you choose to invoke either all your shrouds on it or none of them. If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target. This damage roll never benefits from bonuses to damage rolls, and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any.


The timing seems as follows:


  • You choose to invoke shrouds

  • You make your attack roll

  • You determine if your attack hits

  • The attack deals damage. At this time your shrouds deal damage. If you missed, one fewer shroud deals damage.


    • Since you have now dealt damage, you check to see if the monster was reduced to 0 hit points and if it was subject to two or more of your shrouds. If so, move two shrouds per inexorable shroud.


  • The shrouds now vanish from the target.



Please explain why you feel the shrouds vanish prior to the target hitting 0, since the power clearly states that the attack deals damage, then the shrouds vanish.

It is absolutely clear in the wording from the Assassin's Shroud power that they don't vanish when you invoke them, but rather after they deal damage.
The shrouds vanish prior to the target hitting 0, so no. The phrasing on Assassin's Shroud is stilted enough that DM's with a laxer view of timing may be silly enough to let it work though.



I disagree, and the timing seems pretty clear.

   Before you make an attack roll against the target, you choose to invoke either all your shrouds on it or none of them. If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target. This damage roll never benefits from bonuses to damage rolls, and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any.


The timing seems as follows:


  • You choose to invoke shrouds

  • You make your attack roll

  • You determine if your attack hits

  • The attack deals damage. At this time your shrouds deal damage. If you missed, one fewer shroud deals damage.


    • Since you have now dealt damage, you check to see if the monster was reduced to 0 hit points and if it was subject to two or more of your shrouds. If so, move two shrouds per inexorable shroud.


  • The shrouds now vanish from the target.



Please explain why you feel the shrouds vanish prior to the target hitting 0, since the power clearly states that the attack deals damage, then the shrouds vanish.

It is absolutely clear in the wording from the Assassin's Shroud power that they don't vanish when you invoke them, but rather after they deal damage.


Here is how I see the timing...


  • You choose to invoke the shrouds

  • The power effectively gains two new lines;


    • special: if you hit, deal 1d6 per shroud you had invoked, if you miss deal 1d6 per shroud you invoked (minus one shroud)


  • The shrouds vanish

  • You make the attack, resolving hit/miss and damage rolls

That's a pretty far stretch from what Assassin's Shroud actually says though. It specifies that Assassin's Shroud damage is in addition to the attack damage, so it happens when the attack deals damage. It also specifies that the shrouds disappear after damage is dealt.
Yeah, as a general rule, it's best to treat striker mechanics as simply adding a few dice of damage to the triggering attack power. As far as I can tell, it does exactly this - and Assassin's Shroud does state that the damage is dealt, then shrouds are removed. I firmly believe JRedGiant1's point of view. 

For the OP, Re: your thread title; Question for Assassin's what, exactly? :D (I know, being a grammar nazi. I can't help it, it sticks out like a sore thumb to me.)
I see one problem with JRedGiant's interpretation (forgive my quoting, I don't know how to quote from multiple sources).

That's a pretty far stretch from what Assassin's Shroud actually says though. It specifies that Assassin's Shroud damage is in addition to the attack damage, so it happens when the attack deals damage. It also specifies that the shrouds disappear after damage is dealt.



Combine the bolded with the first part of the Assassin's shroud description:

"Before you make an attack roll against the target, you choose to invoke either all your shrouds on it or none of them. If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target. This damage roll never benefits from bonuses to damage rolls, and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any."

The damage (attack damage and shroud damage) is simultaneous and since if you've invoked ANY shrouds you've invoked all of them then you will not have any left to move.

Add that with the fact that you invoke before the attack and that leaves you with no shrouds to move.  If you could decide to invoke after you attacked then I could see the timing issue but the fact that as soon as you invoke they are all used (because it doesn't matter if you hit or miss, you still do the shroud damage) means that there is nothing left to worry about as far as timing goes.

If you invoke 1 you invoke all, if you attack and decide to invoke they are all gone.  I think you're trying to stretch the inclusion of "all your shrouds then vanish from the target" from (what I believe was it's intended goal) making it clear that the shrouds are gone (that is to say that you would have to start over as far as stacking shrouds goes) to indicate that there is a timing issue.

I don't think timing even comes to play unless there's an Assassin Feat that lets you only invoke some of your shrouds.
I see one problem with JRedGiant's interpretation (forgive my quoting, I don't know how to quote from multiple sources).

That's a pretty far stretch from what Assassin's Shroud actually says though. It specifies that Assassin's Shroud damage is in addition to the attack damage, so it happens when the attack deals damage. It also specifies that the shrouds disappear after damage is dealt.



Combine the bolded with the first part of the Assassin's shroud description:

"Before you make an attack roll against the target, you choose to invoke either all your shrouds on it or none of them. If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target. This damage roll never benefits from bonuses to damage rolls, and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any."

The damage (attack damage and shroud damage) is simultaneous and since if you've invoked ANY shrouds you've invoked all of them then you will not have any left to move.

Add that with the fact that you invoke before the attack and that leaves you with no shrouds to move.  If you could decide to invoke after you attacked then I could see the timing issue but the fact that as soon as you invoke they are all used (because it doesn't matter if you hit or miss, you still do the shroud damage) means that there is nothing left to worry about as far as timing goes.

If you invoke 1 you invoke all, if you attack and decide to invoke they are all gone.  I think you're trying to stretch the inclusion of "all your shrouds then vanish from the target" from (what I believe was it's intended goal) making it clear that the shrouds are gone (that is to say that you would have to start over as far as stacking shrouds goes) to indicate that there is a timing issue.

I don't think timing even comes to play unless there's an Assassin Feat that lets you only invoke
some of your shrouds.



Not exactly. Your argument assumes that invoking the shrouds immediately causes them to vanish, and that is untrue.

When you invoke the shrouds, you are making  the committment that they will be expended. And yes, that means all of them - you cannot invoke them piecemeal. Then you attack. Then you deal damage, and if that damage kills the target, the target dies. Then, and only then, do the shrouds disappear. Remember, the description of the power Assassin's Shroud is very clear that they disappear AFTER damage is dealt.

So at the point when the creature dies, the shrouds are still there, and thus two of them appear on the new target from Inexorable Shroud.Then the shrouds on the target of your attack vanish.

WOW, this forum has become nothing more than "optimize my charge build" or "I'm going to argue this blatently wrong interpretation of X skill/feat/whatever."  Most people have run out of original ideas and have nothing left to do but troll the boards in hopes that whatever bizzare logic lies in their heads wil be allowed.



Either you're completely off topic, or you disagree with how I'm reading Assassin's Shroud. If it's the latter, please explain your point of view. I have made a very clear case, using the text of the power, that shows that the shrouds disappear after damage is dealt, and only after damage is dealt.
He/she was pointlessly complaining in a thread about the content (and indeed, purpose) of that very thread.


Basically, trolling troll is trolling.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I figured, but at some point I would like to hear a reasonable defense of the "shrouds disappear immediately" position, or I'm just going to go on thinking I'm right. And we can't have that now. Tongue Out
I figured, but at some point I would like to hear a reasonable defense of the "shrouds disappear immediately" position, or I'm just going to go on thinking I'm right. And we can't have that now.



I'm going to defend the "it doesn't work" camp a different way.  Let's just assume that you're 100% right on the timing of the shrouds disappearing.

* You attack.
* You decide to invoke shrouds.
* You resolve attack, dealing extra damage reducing the enemy to 0 hit points.
* You move 2 shrouds to an enemy within 5 squares.
* The shrouds disappear because you expended them -- the fact that they are now on another enemy is irrelevant. (and Inexorable Shroud specifically moves the same shrouds, so these aren't different shrouds than the ones that you expended that have a short shelf life).




* The shrouds disappear because you expended them -- the fact that they are now on another enemy is irrelevant. (and Inexorable Shroud specifically moves the same shrouds, so these aren't different shrouds than the ones that you expended that have a short shelf life).



That sounds like a reasonable argument. However, it made me go back and take a look at the Assassin's Shroud power, where I discovered this text.

  Before you make an attack roll against the target, you choose to invoke either all your shrouds on it or none of them. If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target.

This makes me believe that if I have 4 shrouds on Frank, I invoke them and Frank dies from damage, I put two shrouds on Joe from Inexorable Shrouds, and then all of the shrouds vanish from the target of my attack...Frank. I'm not convinced that Joe's shrouds disappear, because Assassin's Shroud only says the target, Frank, has his shrouds vanish.

Basically, it seems like the fact that they are now on another eneme actually is extremely relevant.
Seems legit. Also, look at this thread for a similar discussion that has reached similar conclusions.

* The shrouds disappear because you expended them -- the fact that they are now on another enemy is irrelevant. (and Inexorable Shroud specifically moves the same shrouds, so these aren't different shrouds than the ones that you expended that have a short shelf life).



That sounds like a reasonable argument. However, it made me go back and take a look at the Assassin's Shroud power, where I discovered this text.

  Before you make an attack roll against the target, you choose to invoke either all your shrouds on it or none of them. If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target.

This makes me believe that if I have 4 shrouds on Frank, I invoke them and Frank dies from damage, I put two shrouds on Joe from Inexorable Shrouds, and then all of the shrouds vanish from the target of my attack...Frank. I'm not convinced that Joe's shrouds disappear, because Assassin's Shroud only says the target, Frank, has his shrouds vanish.

Basically, it seems like the fact that they are now on another eneme actually is extremely relevant.



Inexorable Shroud states that you can move up 2 shrouds which is fine, but the act of moving them to a different target doesnt invalidate that they still dissapear once invoked.  So you can certainly move those shrouds from Frank to Joe but they will still vanish.  Inexorable shroud doesnt make new shrouds it only allows you to MOVE shrouds.  Hence they are still the same ones that were on Frank and since you invoked them they'd still dissapear on Joe.


I'd also argue the order in which  this happens would be as follows

1)Declare an attack
2)Declare you are invoking your shourds
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Deal damage
5)Since shrouds dealt damage they dissapear
6)Target dies.

Since the damage was dealt BEFORE the target died they'd be gone and thus youd have nothing to move.  The order of step 4 through 6 are important because if you argued they happened at the same time then you'd never be able to play interupts that trigger on damage since we could then argue that dying effect happens at the same time as the damage.  And dying creatures can only use No Action abilities.  You could even take it furthat and say 1-6 all happen at the same time an then as long as you did enough damage to kill a target they wouldnt be able to any interupts since theyd be under the dying status as soon as my attack was declared.

Inexorable Shroud states that you can move up 2 shrouds which is fine, but the act of moving them to a different target doesnt invalidate that they still dissapear once invoked.  So you can certainly move those shrouds from Frank to Joe but they will still vanish.  Inexorable shroud doesnt make new shrouds it only allows you to MOVE shrouds.  Hence they are still the same ones that were on Frank and since you invoked them they'd still dissapear on Joe.



I never said it made new shrouds. I said that Assassin's Shroud is very specific. Only the shrouds that are on the target of your attack disappear. So if the shrouds on Frank are moved to Joe and Frank dies, the shrouds on Joe don't disappear, because they are not on Frank.


I'd also argue the order in which  this happens would be as follows


1)Declare an attack
2)Declare you are invoking your shourds
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Deal damage
5)Since shrouds dealt damage they dissapear
6)Target dies.

Since the damage was dealt BEFORE the target died they'd be gone and thus youd have nothing to move.  The order of step 4 through 6 are important because if you argued they happened at the same time then you'd never be able to play interupts that trigger on damage since we could then argue that dying effect happens at the same time as the damage.



Okay, except that actually, Inexorable Shroud DOES NOT CARE WHEN THE TARGET DIES. It cares about when the target is reduced to 0 hit points.

Assuming that we can agree that the target of an attack has its hit points reduced at the exact same moment when damage is dealt, the order is...


1)Declare an attack on Frank
2)Declare you are invoking your shrouds on Frank
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Deal damage to Frank. At this point, Frank is reduced to 0 hit points.
5)Inexorable Shroud is triggered and two shrouds are moved from Frank to Joe.
6)Since shrouds were invoked, all the shrouds on Frank disappear. The shrouds on Joe are not on Frank, so they stay.
7)Frank dies (or is unconscious, depending on the assassin's choice to kill or render unconscious.)


And dying creatures can only use No Action abilities.  You could even take it furthat and say 1-6 all happen at the same time an then as long as you did enough damage to kill a target they wouldnt be able to any interupts since theyd be under the dying status as soon as my attack was declared.



By the way, this is also wrong. If the assassin declares an attack on Frank, and Frank has an interrupt that is triggered when an enemy attacks, the interrupt occurs between step 1 and 2. If Frank has an interrupt that is triggered when an enemy hits, it is triggered between step 3 and 4. If Frank has an interrupt that is triggered when an enemy deals damage, it is triggered after step 4, and in some cases may prevent itself from being reduced to 0 hit points.

Lets say Frank has this power:

Resilience: Immediate Interrupt, Encounter. Trigger - an attack deals damage to Frank. Effect - All damage from the triggering attack is reduced to 0.

The exchange now looks like this.

1)Declare an attack on Frank
2)Declare you are invoking your shrouds on Frank
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Deal damage to Frank. At this point, Frank is reduced to 0 hit points.
5)Frank triggeres Resilience. All damage dealt in step 4 is negated.
6)Since shrouds were invoked, all the shrouds on Frank disappear. Note that Inexorable Shroud was never triggered, so there are no shrouds on Joe.

You just argued that being reduced to 0 and dying are two seperate actions but dealing damage and being reduced to 0 is the same action?  Nothing in DnD happens at the same time, eveything happens in a specific order.  ok I'll restate my originaly order of events areguement and adjust it slightly.

1)Declare an attack
2)Declare you are invoking your shourds
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Deal damage
5)Since shrouds dealt damage they dissapear
6)Target is reduced to 0.
7)Taget is subject to the dying condition

Since your aguing that damage dealt and being reduced to 0 happens at the same time why cant I argue that being subject to the dying condition also happens at the same time thus negating the ability to use an interupt.  By arguing that very fact you are agreeing that nothing happens simmultaneuosly. It would look like this.


1)Declare an attack
2)Declare you are invoking your shourds
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Target takes damage is reduced to 0 and subject to the dying condition and is unconscious
5)Since shrouds dealt damage they dissapear

By stating the  that order of events happen that way the interrupt can not happen because you are immidiatly subject to the dying condition and unconscious and thus can not take actions.  Of course we agree thats cleary not the case and because damage is a sepperate action you obviously CAN play that intterupt.

Interrupts are retroactive, not simultaneous. You are not immediately subject to the dying condition, but the window is so narrow that the only things that fit in the window are immediate interrupts, triggered free actions (such a minotaurs racial MBA) and triggered no actions.
Interrupts are retroactive, not simultaneous. You are not immediately subject to the dying condition, but the window is so narrow that the only things that fit in the window are immediate interrupts, triggered free actions (such a minotaurs racial MBA) and triggered no actions.



Why not?  Why can you say dealing damage and being reduced to 0 happen simultaniously but being subject to the dying condition is not?

THIS
logic declares you are correct and theres a window

1)Declare an attack
2)Declare you are invoking your shourds
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Deal damage
5)Since shrouds dealt damage they dissapear
6)Target is reduced to 0.
7)Taget is subject to the dying condition

THIS logic declares that it happens at the same time and thus there is no window allowing you to play the interrupt.

1)Declare an attack
2)Declare you are invoking your shourds
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Target takes damage is reduced to 0 and subject to the dying condition and is unconscious
5)Since shrouds dealt damage they dissapear

So which is it?
Fine, if we must get silly, it looks like this.

1)Declare an attack. Check for interrupts. Check for triggered effects.
2)Declare you are invoking your shrouds. Check for interrupts. Check for triggered effects.
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits. Check for interrupts. Check for triggered effects.
4)Deal damage.
            4a) Determine the amount of damage dealt.
            4b) Apply resistances and vulnrability to damage dealt.
            4c) Reduce temporary hit points.
            4d) Reduce actual hit points.
            4e) Check for interrupts.
            4f) Check for triggered effects. (Inexorable Shroud occurs here)
5) Remove all shrouds from the target. Check for interrupts. Check for triggered effects.
Ummm, when is the target reduced to 0 in your scenario.  You're also showing that each of these things happens seperatly.  Being reduced to 0 hp is a condition just like dazed, dying etc.  So if being subject to the dying condtion happens seperatly why cant being reduced to 0.  Assassins shroud states If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target.  So why is that not part of step 4, dealing damage, since the shrouds dissapearing is a result of dealing damage.

So I could argure

1)Declare attack
  a) check for triggered actions interupts etc for declaring an attack
2) Declare you are invoking your shrouds
3)Roll to see is attack hits or misses
  a) check for triggered actions as a result of the hitting or missing
4)Roll Damage
  a) check for triggered actions when dice are rolled (ie brtual 1 etc)
5)Subject takes damage
  a) check for triggered actions as a result of taking damage
6)Shrouds deal damage and dissapear
7)Target is redcued by damage amount
  a) check for Damage reduction
  b) check for insubstantial
8)Remove temporary hit point
9)Remove regular hit points

If hp < 0

10)Taregt is reduced to 0 hp or lower
  a) check for triggered actions
11) Target is subject to dying
  a) check for triggered actions
12) target is unconscious
13) target is helpless
14) End action

If hp > 0

10)End action
Being reduced to 0 hp is a condition just like dazed, dying etc.



Having an amount of hit points, whether it's 0 or 6,428, does not constitute having a condition.


Thats the reason why you have triggered events on being reduced to 0 hp or lower becuase it is a SPECIFIC condition.  Being reduced to 90 hp is still a condition but nothing magical happens when I'm reduced to 90 or lower.  Obviosuly wizards didnt list an Order of events page so I'm as much right as you are, so if you as a player can interrpret assassin's shroud as thus I as a DM can interrpret dying as such.. The only difference is my RAW makes me a crappy DM, but your RAW doesnt make you a crappy player, your  just "optimizing."  I feel like there should be a DM Optimization board to see what kind of craziness DMs can come up with as far as RAW.
You're assuming I'm trying some crazy optimization stunt as a player, and you're wrong.

I don't run an assassin, and I never have. I generally don't run strikers when I'm playing at all. I'm not trying to come up with some crazy optimization trick. I am following the rules as written to the best of my ability as a DM, with an effort to fairly adjudicate tables I run. The beneficiaries of my crazy optimization, as you put it, are the players at my LFR tables, and the ones who suffer are my monsters.

You and I may disagree on how we interpret the rules, but I assure you, my interpretations are not based on acquiring a particular advantage for my characters.

You, on the other hand, seem very intent on winning this particular argument so that you can continue to denegrate Rathyr's build and point out how inferior it is to your executioner. So step off of the "I'm the fair handed DM and you're the munchkin player" soapbox, because if anything, the roles are reversed.
I'm not trying to "win" this debate any more than you are.  This debate started well before his build was introduced.  How can you say "my interpretations are not based on acquiring a particular advantage for my characters"  when thats the WHOLE basis for RAW arguments. His build is 100% built around this rule interpretation. If we threw that out the window and only RAIntended arguments were valid this board would have NO point.  BTW my assassin is an "Assassin" not an executioner?!?  I'm in the disliking of the e-class system.
I can say that "my interpretations are not based on acquiring a particular advantage for my characters" because:



  • None of my characters use Inexorable Shroud

  • None of my characters use Assassins Shroud

  • None of my characters are assassins.



I really don't see why that's so complicated.
so simply because you dont play a shroud assassin, that makes you mute to the "my interpretations are not based on acquiring a particular advantage for characters"
You removed a very key word in that last post. I said I'm not trying to gain any advantage for "my" characters, which is exactly what you accused me of doing.

Again, I'm reading the rules as written and applying them, when I DM, as they are. I have no characters that benefit from this...I have no ulterior motives.
The Op board is based on interpretting rules in order for players to aquire an advantage.  Weather you use them or not is irrelevent.  God forbid someone argues against a rules interpretation that favors a player. Undecided
The Op board is based on interpretting rules in order for players to aquire an advantage.  Weather you use them or not is irrelevent.  God forbid someone argues against a rules interpretation that favors a player.

Your argument is really being bolstered by your obvious bitterness towards this forum as a whole.  If you don't like it, go somewhere else. You're wasting your time and ours if you're just here to mindlessly lash out at all of us.
I'm being productive to the Op boards by not being a sheep and following along with interpreations just because they favor the players.  Again why do I have any less right to argue against it?  So the common responce is, "you dont like it leave?" instead of constructively contributing to the discussion?  My argument is no less valid than RedGiants, but because his favors the player, more people are apt to agree with him.
you are not being productive at all.

derailing someones thread with banter that equates to "your build sucks mine is better" is not productive. you've amazingly arrogant and you've shown very little respect for others on this forum. not to mention the forum itself. you've agressive towards people who don't agree with to the point where others have asked you to relax, and you've answered by giving the "finger of honor".

you obviously have some other issue going on. i'm guessing we're just eating the fallout. but you should seriously consider how you are behaving towards your fellows as it is not acceptable conduct.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

How is that relavent to THIS discussion in THIS thread?  I've stated valid arguments and rather than saying, "I see your point of view", or "that makes sense" I get, "you don't like it leave" or "since I dont use that mechanic its ok since it doesnt affect MY characters?" rather than continuing to debate the discussion at hand.  I even posted in the other buid thread that I DID like his build theory but I challeneged him to think outside its main mechanic.  Thats what allows a build to epic by being able to facilitate all avenues even if the encouter doesnt allow for your primary build mechanic.  Thats why at-will builds are much more celebrated becuase they function regardless of the encounter.  They rely on nothing more than an at-will to drive its entire core mechanic and the feats only enhance that vs a build requiring a very specific set of events needing to fall in place and a DM agreeing to an obviously questionable rules interpretation for the build to be effective.  I have great admoration for players builds that are built within the general rules understanding and am obviously vocal against "grey area rules builds" since they will not function without the proper DM.

Examples of builds that I admire, are Mellords Revevant package build.  It functions without any question.  The EEE build, KAM build etc.  They are overdone but only because of how obviously effective they are and they UNQESTIONABLEY work within ANY interpreation of the rules.  There are others as well but you get the idea.  I have no problems with charge builds but I take offence to the same build being posted on a weekly basis and being touted as unique simply because they changed one feat or are being played as a different race or a different class but apply the EXACT same feat/item/power slection package.
The Op board is based on interpretting rules in order for players to aquire an advantage.  Weather you use them or not is irrelevent.  God forbid someone argues against a rules interpretation that favors a player.




Look, you can't accuse me of being a munchkin player who is just trying to hork some spurious advantage for his own characters, and then chastise me because that's exactly what I'm supposed to do here.

Oh, wait, your entire argument about why Inexorable Shroud doesn't place shrouds on the new target is based on the idea that after you deal damage to a creature, there is time for the creature to stop, go to the kitchen, make a sandwich, grab a lemonade, watch an Andy Griffith rerun, then come back to the battle and take the damage. But somehow interrupts don't work.

So based on your "logic" so far, I guess you can do that.
considering the first post i ever saw from sotomatic was to call the entire forum "crazy".  I'm not surprised either.  However I suggest we just move on and ignore him since he just seems to be seeking attention threw antagonistic comments.  

In any case, I think this debate really comes down to the DM.  On one hand, you have the argument that the shrouds dissapear because they have been used up.  Since you don't create new shrouds and simply move them from one target to another, it's an interesting one.  If it wasn't so clear as to the fact that you move them and not create more, perhaps this argument could be less convincing.

Also, the wording seems to state that the shrouds dissapear "from the target", the target being the creature you just killed and not the other monster you just moved the shrouds to.  I can also see the logic behind this argument as well.  So I guess it comes down to the chain of events leading up to you being able to use the feats.

This chain of events has multiple versions, however, I believe that the more convincing one would be the one advanced by JRedGiant1 :

1)Declare an attack on Frank
2)Declare you are invoking your shrouds on Frank
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Deal damage to Frank. At this point, Frank is reduced to 0 hit points.
5)Inexorable Shroud is triggered and two shrouds are moved from Frank to Joe.
6)Since shrouds were invoked, all the shrouds on Frank disappear. The shrouds on Joe are not on Frank, so they stay.
7)Frank dies (or is unconscious, depending on the assassin's choice to kill or render unconscious.)

This however follows the logic that if the shrouds are on another target before they supposedly dissapear from frank they do not follow suit.  The feat activating is a triggered event with the trigger of a creature being reduced to 0 hit points.  I believe the same trigger for example can be found from the minotaur racial power.  One is a feat, the other is a power.  But both have the same trigger and should behave the same way.  You get reduced to 0 hit points, you make an attack, you then fall unconscious.  The only difference is that instead with the feat you get to move shrouds from a target to another target.  So I believe this to be perfectly legal.

My real problem is with allowing shrouds that have been moved to remain.  They have been used to do damage, they have been expended.  New shrouds are not created, simply moved.  I believe, as a fellow DM, that the shrouds by RAI would be removed along with the others.  However, by RAW, the shrouds are removed only from "the target" which in this case is Frank, and not Joe.  Hence, they remain.  

On a side note, this could potentially greatly help assassin DPR, moving it a little more out of the burst bar and into the more constant DPR bar.  Since with some decent tactics, you can continue to chain shrouds from target to target, allowing the Assassin to deal out pretty solid DPR.  However would this make the Assassin too powerful ?  I wouldn't mind seeing a DPR calculation done with this potential chain effect if possible.  
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)


My real problem is with allowing shrouds that have been moved to remain.  They have been used to do damage, they have been expended.  New shrouds are not created, simply moved.  I believe, as a fellow DM, that the shrouds by RAI would be removed along with the others.  However, by RAW, the shrouds are removed only from "the target" which in this case is Frank, and not Joe.  Hence, they remain. 

(....stuff deleted for brevity)

On a side note, this could potentially greatly help assassin DPR, moving it a little more out of the burst bar and into the more constant DPR bar.  Since with some decent tactics, you can continue to chain shrouds from target to target, allowing the Assassin to deal out pretty solid DPR.  However would this make the Assassin too powerful ?  I wouldn't mind seeing a DPR calculation done with this potential chain effect if possible.  



On the point of RAI, I believe you may have answered yourself here. Given that Inexorable Shroud comes from an article clearly intended as a patch fix to bring the original assassin to be a viable striker, I think it's very possible that not only are the shrouds moving from Frank to Joe by RAW, but I think it's very likely that this actually is also RULES AS INTENDED. As in, it was always the author's and WotC's intention to put a little extra oomph in the assassin with this feat.

Purely speculation of course, but it seems reasonable to me.
However I suggest we just move on and ignore him

+1
I agree with the RAI as well. If this made the Assassin the new top striker, it would be pretty clear it was too powerful. But if it simply makes them viable strikers like they should have been all along (which is the goal of the article), maybe it's the best interpretation.


This chain of events has multiple versions, however, I believe that the more convincing one would be the one advanced by JRedGiant1 :

1)Declare an attack on Frank
2)Declare you are invoking your shrouds on Frank
3)Roll attack to see if attack hits
4)Deal damage to Frank. At this point, Frank is reduced to 0 hit points.
5)Inexorable Shroud is triggered and two shrouds are moved from Frank to Joe.
6)Since shrouds were invoked, all the shrouds on Frank disappear. The shrouds on Joe are not on Frank, so they stay.
7)Frank dies (or is unconscious, depending on the assassin's choice to kill or render unconscious.)

This however follows the logic that if the shrouds are on another target before they supposedly dissapear from frank they do not follow suit.  The feat activating is a triggered event with the trigger of a creature being reduced to 0 hit points.  I believe the same trigger for example can be found from the minotaur racial power.  One is a feat, the other is a power.  But both have the same trigger and should behave the same way.  You get reduced to 0 hit points, you make an attack, you then fall unconscious.  The only difference is that instead with the feat you get to move shrouds from a target to another target.  So I believe this to be perfectly legal.

My real problem is with allowing shrouds that have been moved to remain.  They have been used to do damage, they have been expended.  New shrouds are not created, simply moved.  I believe, as a fellow DM, that the shrouds by RAI would be removed along with the others.  However, by RAW, the shrouds are removed only from "the target" which in this case is Frank, and not Joe.  Hence, they remain.  

On a side note, this could potentially greatly help assassin DPR, moving it a little more out of the burst bar and into the more constant DPR bar.  Since with some decent tactics, you can continue to chain shrouds from target to target, allowing the Assassin to deal out pretty solid DPR.  However would this make the Assassin too powerful ?  I wouldn't mind seeing a DPR calculation done with this potential chain effect if possible.  



Bt allowing taking damage and being reduced to 0 happen simultaniously you are now no longer allowing the player use interrupts based on trigger off of damage since you are skipping the break and now only allowing the player to take actions that trigger off of being reduced to 0.  Being reduced to 0 adds the dying condition which mean you can no longer take actions. The only way for it to make sence would be for taking damage and being reduced to 0 to be 2 seperate actions.
The Op board is based on interpretting rules in order for players to aquire an advantage.  Weather you use them or not is irrelevent.  God forbid someone argues against a rules interpretation that favors a player.




Look, you can't accuse me of being a munchkin player who is just trying to hork some spurious advantage for his own characters, and then chastise me because that's exactly what I'm supposed to do here.

Oh, wait, your entire argument about why Inexorable Shroud doesn't place shrouds on the new target is based on the idea that after you deal damage to a creature, there is time for the creature to stop, go to the kitchen, make a sandwich, grab a lemonade, watch an Andy Griffith rerun, then come back to the battle and take the damage. But somehow interrupts don't work.

So based on your "logic" so far, I guess you can do that.



My argement is that dealing damage and the target being reduced to 0 would be no different than declaring an attack and making an attack roll happen at the same time and yet they are always listed sepretly.   Why is taking damage and being reduced to 0 the ONLY things allowed to happen at the same time and not in a listed order?  By your argument once I declared my attack, the creature could now stop, go to the kitchen, make a sandwich, grab a lemonade, watch an Andy Griffith rerun, then come back to the battle and see if he was hit.