|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 6:26PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
My use of the term invalidate was poorly chosen. I meant that the rule is intending that any awareness makes the talent unusable, precisely because a more specific awareness isn't identified.
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. I disagree on the rules intent in in any way clear though. I can see it being read as you say but I can also read it as Cyber-Dave did. Both are valid, hence the confusion.
From my perspective, using any awareness doesn't work well. IMO, if you can't tell that you are going to be attacked at the moment it happens, you aren't aware of the attempt and assassinate activates. Well that's what makes sense to me, even though that's not what it says.
As to the last part, I'd rather not see save or die effects. Well at least not at base. Sounds like a good optional thing though if you like that sort of thing.
I like save or die effects; but, as you say, not at base. They should be higher level features.
I think the current Assassinate talent should be renamed to Backstab. Then a higher level talent (or feat) called Assassinate be created.
EDIT: Edited for spelling (multiple times - getting tired, been up over 25 hrs. now).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 6:58PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I like Backstab as well (if feels more "Rogue-ey"), and I think Assassinate could be used for whatever the Assassin class gets (if it even gets to be a class). A high-level save-or-die ability wouldn't be terrible - though I'd make it a maneuver, and have it shared with the Fighter, honestly.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 7:28PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
My use of the term invalidate was poorly chosen. I meant that the rule is intending that any awareness makes the talent unusable, precisely because a more specific awareness isn't identified.
That is a circular argument. It is not logically sound.
EDIT: On further contemplation, I retract that last statement; I was conflating the two ways in which the talent could be stronger (usable in more situations and more effective results).
I would actually prefer a much less more situational talent that has a far greater impact, for something named Assassinate; one that actually results in a Save or Die effect, with the increased damage on a successful Save.
I would rather it works as is, but is clarified so that people can hide-"assassinate"-hide-"assassinate"-fail to hide-try to hide again. The DPR on that will be about the same as what a fighter deals by just attacking round after round; it would fair, fun, and would allow for lurker style play.
I do, however, wish they would change the name of "assassinate" to backstab.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 7:43PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
Save or die mechanics need to stay away from classes. (includes magic) and monsters. No save or die!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 7:58PM
#75
|
|
|
I didn't respond to the unaware requirement. I responded to the requirement that the target be surprised and has not acted. It doesn't work.
The running example is an assassination.
Not if the target is running because he is aware of the assassin.
The target doesn't have to become aware of you as it dies in order for it to be an assassination.
That is precisely what I said (the target isn't aware of the assassin at all).
Hell, dropping down right in front of a target and stabbing it in the face is an assassination, if you give them no time to defend themselves.
Thus surprising them!
You could even taunt and play with the target, making them run down alleyways thinking they have some chance of escape before closing in for the kill, and that is certainly an assassination.
No, that is a hunt.
(re: your edit)That would have already been covered by their disguise, and/or gaining entrance to the area, etc.
Only if the disguise was successful; and just gaining access to the area wouldn't guarantee the target would see the disguised assassin as no potential threat.
First: Doesn't matter. the target is running because the assassin wanted them to run. If the kill is accomplished without giving the target the ability to defend itself, it's an assassination.
Second, you misunderstood me. "The target doesn't have to become aware of you as it dies in order for it to be an assassination." -means that the target is unaware of the target until he is dying from the assassin's attack (implying a, "or never becomes aware at all, simply dying without realizing even at the moment of death what has happened".) That is not a requirement for a killing to be an assassination.
Third: and yet, when you make the attack, they are aware of you. it was an aside, re-affirming the absurdity of the "aware" requirement.
Fourth: It's an assassination. It's just an assassination with a slower death than some. The fact that the target has no defense, probably doesn't even understand fully what's happening, etc, all make it an assassination.
Last: What's your point? Is that supposed to in some way be a disagreement with something I've said?
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.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 8:05PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
Maybe the subjective requirements of assasinate are intentional. Maybe they are part of narrative driven design and empowering DMs to run their game their way.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 8:25PM
#77
|
|
|
Maybe the subjective requirements of assasinate are intentional. Maybe they are part of narrative driven design and empowering DMs to run their game their way.
Then they fail. The way to do that is to...actually do that. To give even some brief explanation of that intention. Unclear rules in places where clear rules are expected accomplishes nothing good.
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.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 8:52PM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Maybe the subjective requirements of assasinate are intentional. Maybe they are part of narrative driven design and empowering DMs to run their game their way.
Then they fail. The way to do that is to...actually do that. To give even some brief explanation of that intention. Unclear rules in places where clear rules are expected accomplishes nothing good.
+1
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 9:32PM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2012
|
I think, personally, that the rules mean the target is unaware of you. If, for instance, you blend into a crowd before throwing a knife at their face, and because you were just one face in many, they were unaware of your presence, that should be fine. That's an assasination. The target being unaware of your location, but on the balls of his feet, searching for you, or running away from you, is not an assasination. Just my opinion. ...  First post
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 9:40PM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Maybe the subjective requirements of assasinate are intentional. Maybe they are part of narrative driven design and empowering DMs to run their game their way.
Then they fail. The way to do that is to...actually do that. To give even some brief explanation of that intention. Unclear rules in places where clear rules are expected accomplishes nothing good.
+1
Yeah, I find myself in the odd position of agreeing also.
I think, personally, that the rules mean the target is unaware of you. If, for instance, you blend into a crowd before throwing a knife at their face, and because you were just one face in many, they were unaware of your presence, that should be fine. That's an assasination.
The target being unaware of your location, but on the balls of his feet, searching for you, or running away from you, is not an assasination.
Just my opinion.
The only issue with that is that in the example you give, you blending into the crowd doesn't mean that he isn't aware of you. He still knows you are there, he just doesn't see you as a threat. A surprise attack can't work as an assassination do to the fact that he saw you coming, even though he didn't expect an attack. That why, IMO, It should be unaware of your attack NOT unaware of your presence.
|
|
|
