Quote from: Benoist;514497It's totally fine by me. You're the DM at your own table. The "off-screen" comment isn't about the Assassination table on p.75 of the DMG though, is it? It seems to me you are referring to the Assassinations as described on p.20, which use the Spying rules on p.18, including the complexity of the task and the time it requires to accomplish, which is definitely a mean to simulate the planning, spying, etc. leading to an Assassination attempt "off camera", whether we are talking about Assassin NPCs hired by the party (cf. spies) or not.

You, sir, are correct about the "off-screen" comment. It's the spying rules that feel dreadfully "off-screen", and I hate them. But I still absolutely loathe the assassination tables too, and refuse to use 'em.

Why? Unbalanced as fuck, and completely out of place with the rest of the system.

Quote from: jibbajibbaI am holding the assasination table up as an example of a broken rule that is worse than anything you see in 4e. Instant kill an entire subsystem separate to combat is a pretty odd design choice

Quote from: BenoistOK.

Not me. It's not "broken" to me because (1) there are many mitigating factors to its actual efficiency in each particular scenario, and (2) I can use it in a way that doesn't destroy the game, and quite the opposite, adds layers of complications to it which lead to new adventures, new stuff going on, as I explained in my post earlier, which is cool in my book. But then, I'm no 4e guy, and the whole "rules balance" thing is total bullshit to me.

The only mitigating factor for most victims is surprise. That's it. Forget 4e; the assassination tables are an unbalanced mess, and even worse, they're redundant. The assassin has the Thief's backstab ability, plus assassination. It's ridiculous.

Quote from: Rum CoveTo clarify - 1e Assassination is not "broken" and 3e Diplomacy is "broken"?

They're both broken as fuck. Each are non-magical in nature, and yet they're both encounter-ending "auto-win" abilities that don't quite fit in with the rest of the system. You don't have to be very high in level to defeat most normal opponents.

Let's take the assassination talent. It wouldn't be too impossible to quickly get an Assassin up to 5th-level. The xp requirements aren't so bad (12,001 xp), so unless you're constantly adventuring through a meat grinder, you will get there eventually.

Our 5th-level Assassin is going to have a very good chance of slaughtering most opponents under 10th-level, provided he's smart enough to attack from surprise. Does the victim receive a saving throw? No. The Assassin makes a percentile roll, and likely kills anyone under 10th-level, with his non-magical poisoned blade. This is retarded as fuck, and just doesn't belong in the system.

It wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the system supported non-magical "auto-kill" abilities, but it doesn't, hence the stupidity.

If I threw an Assassin into my game using these rules, I would quickly be lynched by my players, and rightfully so. AD&D does not really allow for "auto-kill" abilities, unless they involve overwhelming situations such as:

* 10 ton boulders dropping on your head
* falling from 100 feet
* decapitation
* falling into a pool of lava/magma
* slitting the throat of someone who is physically helpless

You get the picture.

The exception to this is magic. Magic can circumvent this shit. Cold steel can't. Unless you are of Evil Alignment, of course, possessing the vocation known as "Assassin". :rolleyes: It's pure stupidity.

The Diplomacy rules are equally fucked. There is no saving throw, and there is no time limit to how long we affect the mood of our victim.

I could take a 5th-level Half-Elven Rogue with an 18 Charisma (or 5th-level Expert, if we want to be more mundane), and max out his ranks in Diplomacy. Then I'll give him the feats: Negotiator and Skill Focus (Diplomacy). As a Half-Elf, he has a +2 racial bonus to Diplomacy checks. Oh! And let's not forget synergy bonuses! If the Half-Elf has 5 ranks in Bluff, he gets a +2 bonus to Diplomacy checks, and if he has 5 ranks in Sense Motive, he gains an additional +2 bonus to Diplomacy checks.

Diplomacy (8 ranks): +8
18 Charisma: +4
Half-Elven Racial Bonus: +2
Negotiator Feat: +2
Skill Focus (Diplomacy) Feat: +3
Synergy Bonus (Bluff): +2
Synergy Bonus (Sense Motive): +2

Total: +23

So there we go. A 5th-level Half-Elven Rogue with +23 to Diplomacy checks, and he's not even using any magic. This is just from the Player's Handbook. It is child's play to turn most seemingly inevitable fights into....."kissy face time", thus transforming your opponents into your personal bitch. No saving throw, no nothing, and no real limit to how much or how long you can influence your target's mood.

So there we go. Two rules from two different systems, and both are entirely broken as fuck. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579You, sir, are correct about the "off-screen" comment. It's the spying rules that feel dreadfully "off-screen", and I hate them. But I still absolutely loathe the assassination tables too, and refuse to use 'em.

OK first we need to make some things clear:

(1) You are the DM at your table. You do whatever you want when you are refereeing the game yourself.

(2) There are two distinct scenarios under the corpus of Assassination rules that have nothing to do with each other:

   (A) The Assassin scores a surprise round and gets a chance at Assassination, provided no other elements are in the way (see below) - this is the scenario underlined by the Assassin class description in the PH, which leads to the Assassination table p. 75 of the DMG.

(B) The party hires an Assassin, or the Assassin in the group goes on a similar mission to commit an assassination off camera - these are the rules outlined on p. 20 of the DMG, which follow the Spying guidelines on p. 18 of the DMG.

These are two distinct, different scenarios. OK.

The actual off camera Assassinations under scenario B are following the Spying rules. Which means that the mission is first rated with a difficulty of either Simple, Difficult or Extraordinary (DMG p.18). The Assassin's player (or the DM if the NPC was hired by the party) formulates a plan that then is attempted. Now, the time required to attempt success is defined by the difficulty of the mission:

Easy: 1 to 8 days.
Difficult: 5 to 40 days.
Extraordinary: as required.

Now. The simplest missions will take 1 to 8 days to complete. Simplest missions being just about the general states of the defenses of the enemy, how many people guard the gates and fortress and how many more might be in the underground levels, these types of things. Just looking around stuff. Or you know, assassinating a grunt in the chain of command, some leader visible on the fortifications, as opposed to the right hands and the helps of the real master underneath. ONE TO EIGHT DAYS.

And that my friend, is the mitigating factor right there. Unless the Assassin PC wants to be completely out of the picture for X days, he's not going to go on (B) errands. Period. And X days do matter generally in the ongoing exploration of a dungeon complex (or Giant steadings or whatnot). A difficult mission would take nearly a MONTH of campaign time. This is NOT the usual scenario. This is usually undertaken by an Assassin PC under specific conditions: fulfilling unrelated assassination contracts in downtime or going about a specific target in the PC's field of operation (megadungeon, enemy conspiracy whatnot) during said downtime, which is NOT an unbalanced scenario unless your megadungeon/conspiracy features only one important bad guy in which case.. it fails at the design level. Period.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579The only mitigating factor for most victims is surprise.

Wrong. See p. 75 of the DMG. Quoting the text after the Assassination table now:

Quote from: DMG p. 75The percentage shown is that for success (instant death) under near optimum conditions. You may adjust slightly upwards for perfect conditions (absolute trust, asleep and unguarded, very drunk and unguarded, etc.). Similarly, you must deduct points if the intended victim is wary, takes precautions, and/or is guarded. If the assassination is being attempted by or in behalf of a player character a complete plan of how the deed is to be done should be prepared by the player involved, and the precautions, if any, of the target character should be compared against the plan. Weapon damage always occurs and may kill the victim even though "assassination" failed.

No. To attempt an assassination as per scenario (A) above you must: (a) achieve Surprise, which is described on p.61 of the DMG as NOT being automatic, only being achieved IF and ONLY IF the enemy party is caught completely unawares AND unprepared, which if FAR from being the default attitude in a dungeon environment, especially if creatures hear what's going on in other rooms, if sentries sound the alarm in any possible way etc., to then roll IF DEEMED POSSIBLE AFTER ALL THAT 1d6 with an average 2 in 6 chance to achieve it, and (b) when Surprise is achieved (see (a)), your Assassination based percentage is ipso facto affected by external elements up to the DM: the target is wary, is guarded (i.e. has other creatures watching over his or her back, which is extremely common in exploration situations with creatures living with each other underground), or takes precautions in any particular way (which is usually the case when a dungeon is being raided by invaders). I personally would rule in penalties of 5% or so cumulative, since this is the increment that makes the difference between one level of ability and the next, i.e. if the target is wary, guarded and takes special precautions to avoid assassination attempts this is a -15% on the base percentile chance of success, and the list is open to additional caveats, mind you. It's not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579the assassination tables are an unbalanced mess, and even worse, they're redundant. The assassin has the Thief's backstab ability, plus assassination. It's ridiculous.

This is where you get overboard. The discussion was fine so far. It's okay if you don't like them for reason X or Y that make you discard them at your table. It's another thing COMPLETELY to say that they are objectively, generally, unbalanced, period, the end. You stepped over the line, which is why I'm answering here: you lack perspective. You are not considering all the scenarios possible. Time to chill, my friend. If you had not gone there, I wouldn't have answered. There is a DEFINITE difference between saying "this doesn't fit my campaign/the way I run the game for reason X or Y" and "This is BROKEN".

No. Fuck no. You know better. You sure as hell should know better, mate. YOU are declaring hostilities on this. Not me.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579Let's take the assassination talent. It wouldn't be too impossible to quickly get an Assassin up to 5th-level.

Er. No. When you actually don't fudge the dice, getting to 5th level is, in itself, an achievement in First Ed AD&D. I dare you to play at my game table without playing meat grinders and shit, but normal dungeon crawling. What you are saying is simply not true. 5th level in AD&D First Ed is NOT easy to reach.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579Our 5th-level Assassin is going to have a very good chance of slaughtering most opponents under 10th-level

Actually, if we are talking about scenario (A) above, this is what the table on page 75 of the DMG is about. A 5th level Assassin trying to go after a 9th level character has a 30% chance of assassination under OPTIMUM CONDITIONS (as per DMG p.75, see above), which means the target isn't in the company of any other creatures, doesn't have any idea some intruders might come for it, doesn't take any particular precaution as to its security, etc etc, which at 5th level, when you are still exploring the depth of the underworld, is IMO, EXTREMELY unlikely unless your campaign doesn't accomodate for this baseline, which is then your responsibility directly, not the game's.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579provided he's smart enough to attack from surprise. Does the victim receive a saving throw? No. The Assassin makes a percentile roll, and likely kills anyone under 10th-level, with his non-magical poisoned blade. This is retarded as fuck, and just doesn't belong in the system.

No. Not likely. Depends on the precise circumstances. See above.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579If I threw an Assassin into my game using these rules, I would quickly be lynched by my players

Because your players would be morons who do not understand the context of the AD&D game.

You know, man. It's enough to say "my campaign doesn't play that way, and therefore, I don't like this or that rule". But you went further than that. You went for "Assassination is broken period the end." And that, my friend, is very stupid on your part. You know better. I know you do. You shouldn't have.

Quote from: Benoist;514615OK first we need to make some things clear:

(1) You are the DM at your table. You do whatever you want when you are refereeing the game yourself.

(2) There are two distinct scenarios under the corpus of Assassination rules that have nothing to do with each other:

   (A) The Assassin scores a surprise round and gets a chance at Assassination, provided no other elements are in the way (see below) - this is the scenario underlined by the Assassin class description in the PH.

(B) The party hires an Assassin, or the Assassin in the group goes on a similar mission to commit an assassination off camera - this follows the Spying guidelines on p.18-20 of the DMG.

These are two distinct, different scenarios. OK.

The actual off camera Assassinations under scenario B are following the Spying rules. Which means that the mission is first rated with a difficulty of either Simple, Difficult or Extraordinary (DMG p.18). The Assassin's player (or the DM if the NPC was hired by the party) formulates a plan that then is attempted. Now, the time required to attempt success is defined by the difficulty of the mission:

Easy: 1 to 8 days.
Difficult: 5 to 40 days.
Extraordinary: as required.

Now. The simplest missions will take 1 to 8 days to complete. Simplest missions being just about the general states of the defenses of the enemy, how many people guard the gates and fortress and how many more might be in the underground levels, these types of things. Just looking around stuff. Or you know, assassinating a grunt in the chain of command, some leader visible on the fortifications, as opposed to the right hands and the helps of the real master underneath. ONE TO EIGHT DAYS.

And that my friend, is the mitigating factor right there. Unless the Assassin PC wants to be completely out of the picture for X days, he's not going to go on (B) errands. Period. And X days do matter generally in the ongoing exploration of a dungeon complex (or Giant steadings or whatnot). A difficult mission would take nearly a MONTH of campaign time. This is NOT the usual scenario. This is usually undertaken by an Assassin PC under specific conditions: fulfilling unrelated assassination contracts in downtime or going about a specific target in the PC's field of operation (megadungeon, enemy conspiracy whatnot) during said downtime, which is NOT an unbalanced scenario unless your megadungeon/conspiracy features only one important bad guy in which case.. it fails at the design level. Period.

Benny, I totally don't care about the spying rules in AD&D, and consider them irrelevant. I hate using them because they involve the PC engaging in a large number of meaningful activities "off-camera". All of that crap should involve actual roleplaying, potential combat, and not just a simple percentile roll. And frankly, Benny, I find it incredibly strange for you, of all people, to be defending a game mechanic like this, since it discourages roleplay, ignores actual interactions between characters, and reduces the whole exchange to a single die roll. It's retarded.

Yes, the player might have to explain his elaborate plan to the DM, but guess what? This entire spying adventure that the Assassin went on? It all took place "off-camera". And if the Assassin fails at spying, he's likely to be imprisoned or killed, with no other recourse, no matter how adept the PC might actually be in combat. There's an actual "Spy Failure Table" in there that basically just says that you're captured, tortured, dead, and completely ignores the character's ability to defend himself against murder or capture. That makes it utterly useless to me, and I want no part of it.

This rule is unbalanced, poorly thought out, and it is a piece of shit. Even 1e has its flaws. Accept it.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe only mitigating factor for most victims is surprise.

Quote from: BenoistWrong. See p. 75 of the DMG. Quoting the text after the Assassination table now:

Quote from: DMG p. 75The percentage shown is that for success (instant death) under near optimum conditions. You may adjust slightly upwards for perfect conditions (absolute trust, asleep and unguarded, very drunk and unguarded, etc.). Similarly, you must deduct points if the intended victim is wary, takes precautions, and/or is guarded. If the assassination is being attempted by or in behalf of a player character a complete plan of how the deed is to be done should be prepared by the player involved, and the precautions, if any, of the target character should be compared against the plan. Weapon damage always occurs and may kill the victim even though "assassination" failed.

Quote from: BenoistNo. To attempt an assassination as per scenario (A) above you must: (a) achieve Surprise, which is described on p.61 of the DMG as NOT being automatic, only being achieved IF and ONLY IF the enemy party is caught completely unawares AND unprepared, which if FAR from being the default attitude in a dungeon environment, especially if creatures hear what's going on in other rooms, if sentries sound the alarm in any possible way etc., to then roll IF DEEMED POSSIBLE AFTER ALL THAT 1d6 with an average 2 in 6 chance to achieve it, and (b) when Surprise is achieved (see (a)), your Assassination based percentage is ipso facto affected by external elements up to the DM: the target is wary, is guarded (i.e. has other creatures watching over his or her back, which is extremely common in exploration situations with creatures living with each other underground), or takes precautions in any particular way (which is usually the case when a dungeon is being raided by invaders). I personally would rule in penalties of 5% or so cumulative, since this is the increment that makes the difference between one level of ability and the next, i.e. if the target is wary, guarded and takes special precautions to avoid assassination attempts this is a -15% on the base percentile chance of success, and the list is open to additional caveats, mind you. It's not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.

Your wall of text is hurting my delicate brain. Look....maybe I should not have said "auto-kill", and should have instead said "instant-kill". It doesn't matter. My point still stands....because I said, "most victims". And I do stand by that point.

Second of all, it doesn't matter anyway....because it is a non-magical "instant-kill". It's an unbalanced game mechanic that is out of place with the rest of the system. You want "instant-kills", then give 'em to everyone...otherwise, this is unbalanced as hell.

Quote from: BenoistThis is where you get overboard. The discussion was fine so far. It's okay if you don't like them for reason X or Y that make you discard them at your table. It's another thing COMPLETELY to say that they are objectively, generally, unbalanced, period, the end. You stepped over the line, which is why I'm answering here: you lack perspective. You are not considering all the scenarios possible. Time to chill, my friend. If you had not gone there, I wouldn't have answered. There is a DEFINITE difference between saying "this doesn't fit my campaign/the way I run the game for reason X or Y" and "This is BROKEN".

No. Fuck no. You know better. You sure as hell should know better, mate. YOU are declaring hostilities on this. Not me.

The assassination ability is broken. It's not the end of the world. Every edition has its flaws, and there is no "holy grail" of gaming. I can still enjoy and appreciate 1e, while recognizing some of its faults. Hey, do I still enjoy DMing D&D 3.5, despite its many tremendous faults? You bet! Do I also enjoy AD&D, even with its faults? Yep!

I can work around flaws in a game....up to a point. 4e is where it got off the rails for me, but that's not really the point of this discussion. I totally respect Gygax's body of work, but I don't fetishise his writings. He wrote absolutely brilliant stuff, but he also wrote some unbalanced, retarded shit. It's not always an easy task to recognize which is which. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambLet's take the assassination talent. It wouldn't be too impossible to quickly get an Assassin up to 5th-level.

Quote from: BenoistEr. No. When you actually don't fudge the dice, getting to 5th level is, in itself, an achievement in First Ed AD&D. I dare you to play at my game table without playing meat grinders and shit, but normal dungeon crawling. What you are saying is simply not true. 5th level in AD&D First Ed is NOT easy to reach.

It is easy to reach if the DM isn't being a dick. We're only talking 12,001 xp here. If it was 100,000 xps, then you would absolutely have a point, but in this case, you're totally wrong. Most other PCs will only be 4th-level if they have 12,001 xp. Hell, check the City/Town Encounters Matrix in the DMG. There are a shitload of NPCs around that level. Tons.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambOur 5th-level Assassin is going to have a very good chance of slaughtering most opponents under 10th-level

Quote from: BenoistActually, if we are talking about scenario (A) above, this is what the table on page 75 of the DMG is about. A 5th level Assassin trying to go after a 9th level character has a 30% chance of assassination under OPTIMUM CONDITIONS (as per DMG p.75, see above), which means the target isn't in the company of any other creatures, doesn't have any idea some intruders might come for it, doesn't take any particular precaution as to its security, etc etc, which at 5th level, when you are still exploring the depth of the underworld, is IMO, EXTREMELY unlikely unless your campaign doesn't accomodate for this baseline, which is then your responsibility directly, not the game's.

I said that the Assassin had a poisoned blade, remember? That would be a common weapon for Assassins. The victim receives a saving throw for the poison, but not for the assassination ability. And furthermore, what "underworld" are we talking about here? The Assassin's quarry might be in a dungeon, or a city street , or in a tavern. Who knows?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf I threw an Assassin into my game using these rules, I would quickly be lynched by my players

Quote from: BenoistBecause your players would be morons who haven't read the rule books nor understand the context of the AD&D game. Enough said.

Most of my players are casual players. With the exception of one of my players, they just don't go through the rules with a fine tooth comb. They just want to sit down and play. Lots of people are like that. AD&D is a pretty dense rules set, and the poorly organized text does not lend itself to a casual read. You really have to delve into it. My players would never notice stuff like this. Most people won't.

Quote from: BenoistYou know, man. It's enough to say "my campaign doesn't play that way, and therefore, I don't like this or that rule". But you went further than that. You went for "Assassination is broken period the end." And that, my friend, is very stupid on your part. You know better. I know you do. You shouldn't have.

Assassination is totally broken, and I am unrepentant in saying it. It is what it is. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514627Benny,

Assassination is totally broken, and I am unrepentant in saying it. It is what it is. :pundit:

You are of course totally correct. The scenario I described when I brought up assassins. When the Assasin is waiting outide the room/house of the PC and then comes up from behind and kills him was specifically explained to counter Ben's arguements before he made them, because it was obvious what defense he was going to mount.

However... Ben will never admit that any element of 1e is broken. It is not a speherical cow it is a Sacred Cow.

Of course no assassin will ever get to 5th level, no one can ever hire a 9th level assassin they simply don't exist, all 13th level fighters walk everywhere with 60 armed guards and never let their guard down for a moment.

As you eloquently explained the fact is that the assasination table creates an auto-kill no save scenario that is totally incongruous to the rest of the D&D game. Again as you say if there were rules for instant kill from a point blank range hit with a crossbow, or a certain rare set of combat criticals, or a grappling choke hold or whatever, then assasination could be seen to be a part of that subsystem but it doesn't (even if it did not sure I woudl use it).

And yes I abused the fuck of assassins, but I was 12... (the 1/2 orc Fighter/assasin, with dust of disappearance, a poisoned blade and some sort of silence provision gets pretty close to being a broken character in 1e)

Omg. You guys have no fucking idea what you are talking about!

I'm kind of shocked actually. But you know what? Nevermind. It's not worth fighting over. I'll just move on.

ATTN: this thread is now performance art imitating the thing it decries in the OP.

Quote from: Benoist;514657Omg. You guys have no fucking idea what you are talking about!

I'm kind of shocked actually. But you know what? Nevermind. It's not worth fighting over. I'll just move on.

That is actually pretty rude Ben.

I think its fairly obvious that Mr Lamb and I both have 'a fairly good idea of what we are talking about'.

I have been playing D&D for over 30 years fairly sure SL has a similar background.

Your dismissal of the point being made on the basis that we are both somehow intellectually unable to grasp what you have somehow been elevated to by your divine insight is a bit disappointing.

I can toally get a 'I like Assasination it was never a problem in my game' possibly tied to some becauses involving no issue with disparate subsystems and no desire to balance the game....blah, blah, blah...

But telling us we don't know what we are talking is well just very annoying on a day when I have already been annoyed .....

The perfect rules state (now this is from memory and I last read the assasination ruels 20 years ago but .... ) that even if I fail my assasination check the target still takes damage so if I try to assasinate you with a 5th level assasin with a poisoned sword from behind talk us through the process for what happens.....

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514561Well, yes. Who the fuck thinks the stat block for Orcus is widely useful in a 1st level campaign?

I think you knew what I actually meant. We were talking about toughness. Which is only useful at low levels in a game with 20 levels, but which will also show up in every single session after the player chooses the toughness feat, unlike Orcus.

QuoteYou mean is there a case for AD&D not to have stat blocks for vanilla orcs because they aren't a significant threat to 15th level characters? No. I don't think there is a case for that.

Again, what I was saying was (at least intended to be) about rules players will use consistently forever. Not about NPCs or monsters having variable power.

QuoteDiplomacy, in specific, is -- as I have said multiple times in this thread -- a fundamentally broken rule at a conceptual level. Because of the fundamental brokenness it becomes ridiculously powerful at very low levels. (IOW, it can break the back of an E6 campaign without anyone even trying to do it.)

Needless to say, it also remains broken at high levels.

It's also pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of spherical cows, because it clearly isn't a spherical cow: Everyone agrees the rule is broken. The only people who don't are people who refuse to use the rule as written. Anyone actually using the Diplomacy rules will find them broken; there's nothing situational about it. The only thing that varies by situation is how OFTEN you find them broken.

It's semi-relevant if people justify the existence of a rule by saying something like "Frodo should never meet Sauron" or "just use mindless enemies" and so on. Pretty much assuming that the DM decides what the PCs do or don't face, instead of populating the world and letting the party run around in it. Or otherwise assuming a specific context in which the rule works, but which doesn't make up the vast majority of what one does with a game.

Anyway, I wasn't really talking about spherical cows at that point so much as holding up an example of what qualifies as a broken rule and why.

QuoteI would argue that, broadly speaking, this is true. My experience is that around 12th level the PCs start getting the resources to aggressively take control of encounter pacing, which allows the spellcasters to begin dominating play.

By 15th level, the spellcasters have achieved significant superiority as long as they can keep their goals sufficiently focused. And around this time, the second big problem rears its head: The range between the haves and have-nots on the key stats -- attack rolls, AC, saving throws -- exceeds 10 points, which means that you can either:

(a) Challenge one set of PCs while making it a cake-walk for the other; or
(b) Challenge one set of PCs while making it impossible for the other

This is why in the homebrew I'm tinkering with, all scaling bonuses are stat bonus plus level with an optional +5 for training. You say that the range of numbers shouldn't be more than 10, but I think setting that max around 15 works fine if you handle it right (the range in mine may be closer to 13, but the bell curve means most players won't be running around with too many 3s in their stats either).

QuoteThe Epic Level Handbook tried to solve the bonus-differentiation problem by locking in the differentiation at 20th level and maintaining it. But this failed partly because (a) it was applying the cap too late; and (b) it did nothing to control the specialized accumulation of magic items (which meant that differentiation in bonuses would continue to expand).

Always hated items as bonus for this reason. As I've mentioned, there were those who started past 1st level, and gear was always the most tedious part of building a higher level character. If I wanted fiddly point-buy I would play some other game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514660That is actually pretty rude Ben.

And you yourselves are being extremely rude when I actually break down the actual systems and explain all the caveats included and how this will depend on specific circumstances of the campaign and specific adjudication on the part of the DM based on these circumstances, to then dismiss everything I say with "my brain hurts" and "assassination is broken, the system is a piece of shit, just accept it."

There was no shred of an actual exchange. That's rude.

At this point all I'm just seeing that you guys are completely set on your opinions on the matter and we will not budge from there.

I'm fine with it.

I'm done.

This thread needs more walls of text.

Quote from: Aos;514663This thread needs more walls of text.

Gimme something I can multiquote.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514632As you eloquently explained the fact is that the assasination table creates an auto-kill no save scenario that is totally incongruous to the rest of the D&D game. Again as you say if there were rules for instant kill from a point blank range hit with a crossbow, or a certain rare set of combat criticals, or a grappling choke hold or whatever, then assasination could be seen to be a part of that subsystem but it doesn't (even if it did not sure I woudl use it).

I misstated myself. It's not "auto-kill". It's more like "instant kill", with a high degree of success. But it's still not an appropriate unique non-magical ability for a PC. It throws things outta whack. :idunno:

On 3.x Diplomacy, I forgot something. If we take that Half-Elf, and replace one of his levels of Rogue with a level of Bard, he could take 5 ranks of the Knowledge (nobility and royalty) skill. That would provide him with an additional +2 synergy bonus. And since synergy bonuses are considered to be "unnamed" bonuses, then Mister Half-Elf will possess a +25 bonus to his Diplomacy skill check at 5th-level. This total is reached using only the Core Rules, with no magic to aid him. But I guess it doesn't really matter, as the Diplomacy rules are broken at a basic level anyway.... :cool:

What's really funny is, way back when I was writing for Dragon (and stuff there was considered official canon), I wrote some rules for starvation.

I can't recall the exact details of my piece, but WoTC wouldn't allow the article because a person could go 3 weeks without food, without penalty, if they made a DC 50 check (Con, with other stuff I can't remember)...they said it was too unrealistic. No amount of discussion on my part about the kind of luck/design necessary for a character to make that roll (for such a minimal benefit) could convince them to just let it go.

Quote from: Benoist;514662And you yourselves are being extremely rude when I actually break down the actual systems and explain all the caveats included and how this will depend on specific circumstances of the campaign and specific adjudication on the part of the DM based on these circumstances, to then dismiss everything I say with "my brain hurts" and "assassination is broken, the system is a piece of shit, just accept it."

There was no shred of an actual response. That's rude.

At this point all I'm just seeing that you guys are completely set on your opinions on the matter and we will not budge from there.

I'm fine with it.

I'm done.

You caveats are all situational bollocks. You haven't explained why having a totally separate subsystem that can auto-kill with no save is a good rule.
It's not under any circumstances.
You can claim that the skill isn't usable in x many situations but that means it's an even worse rule because you have a whole susb-system that you aren't even going to use which is just complexity for its own sake.

And I never said my brain hurts.. you accused me of not using it and you did it again.
I totally understand your postion I simply disagree with it cos it's a crock of shit and doesn't tackle the actual issue. You seem to think any attack on the holy word of gygax is a personal affront...

I gave you the option to walk us through the process using your higher level understanding of the system to show why it's not broken but you chose not to so I will attempt in my failed and  feeble way to try the same.

Situation:

An assassin has been trailing the PCs discretely as they wander round the city of Freeport looking to re-equip and get ready for a ship leaving the harbour in 2 days time.
The PCs have bene up to a few high jinx, usual city stuff.

The Figther a 13th level sword and shield user is staying at the Star tavern.

The Assassin is skulking in the main room of the tavern. Now the PC is a 'typical' adventurer he had a bit to drink yesterday but he is not stupid as he has made many powerful enemies. He always locks his door and like all warrior adventure types, in D&D, walks about in +3 plate mail armour all the time (... I know..). The tavern room has a few drinkers but its mid morning so no rush. The other PCs have gone out.

Okay so does that sound reasonable? Or should I add a personal guard of 60 heavy cavalry?

The rules.

The Assassin picked his spot so that when the PC emerges from his room he is behind him.
He would have hidden in shadows. Now top of my head I can't recall what a 7th level thief gets for HiS my guess will be 45% with a fair wind and a dex bonus but it's actually irrelevant because the PC makes no effort to look for him anyway.

So now the meaty bit the assasin moves forward. Using Move silently, we will give him 50% MS. He suceeds. Now the warrior doesn't get a chance to hear him no check no save.
The assasin attacks.
So the fighter rolls for suprise. We will go for basic here suprised on a 1-2 on a d6. In a situation where an unseen opponent had moved silently a lot of DMs would give a +1  but its not RAW so ...
Our hapless fighter rolls a 1

The Assassin now pulls the monster out the Assassination roll. Now normally to hit our figther with his AC of -3 (Plate +3 and a +2 sheild) he would need to roll a straight 20 (9th level thief table). Obviously we ignore the shild as its a suprise attack from behind but even at AC 0 and attacking from behind for +4 as a backstab he would need to roll 15. However he has that auto-kill.... so (now no table so doing from memory ) 9th level assassin versus 13th level enemy a 40% chance () to kill him outright.
He rolls ... now either he succeeds and the figther is dead no save game over , all he got to roll here was 1 d 6 for suprise.... or we miss and he has a chance.
Option 1 rolls a 23% - figther is dead. Assassin runs off nice plot hook for rest of party.
Option 2 he rolls 65% - misses . However his attack still succeeds automatically. So he hits with a short sword with tripple damage for backstab and a poison effect. We will use a strong poison instant kill obviously. The fighter gets to make a save now again from memory a fighter poison save at 13th level v poison was what 10?/8? cut the difference call it 9 and we won't give a super powerful poison or anything though we could under the rules of course. So the fighter takes 12 damage or so and had another 40% chance of being dead. - etc...

So as far as I can tell based on a suprise roll which is a 33% straight up roll our fighter has a 64% chance of being dead (40% assasination + 40% chance poison) = over all chance of dying therefore = 21%

Now is that a good rule?

I ran as NPC versus PC to highlight the seeming unfairness of the 1 in 5 chance of your 13th level PC you have been playing for 10 years being slain with you pretty powerless to do anything. Working the other way round would of course be just as easy although NPCs tend to take more precautions that PCs most of the time if only becuase DMs want to avoid you killing their Big Bad like this.

Of course we could use an uber assassin with dust of disappearance, magic sword, etc but I thought I would keep it simple.
I added hide in showed and move silently at the top end I didn't have to of course the assassin could just have been standing right behind the door. Personally I always insisted on a supprise to get Backstab damage and gave a +1 to the chance of suprising with a sucessful Move silently so I felt I should do the same here.