An assassin's damage/backstab bonus

[David]

Hey folks, I believe we discussed this once before, but I'd like to make it concrete. I guess things are slipping a bit in my old age.

An assassin can only use their damage bonus (+1 per two levels, round up) on a creature with generally human-like anatomy. I extend this to all humanoid bipeds, but I'm wondering if I should STOP right there, or allow this bonus to similarly continue on to similar quadrapeds and the like.

The concept of analogous body structures and organs is TOTALLY MODERN and not something that was even widely accepted or even heard of in the early modern (Victorian) era. As a result, I'm inclinded to thing it's "fakey" for an assassin to know how to use their damage bonus against dogs, bears, griffons, etc.

Now, the flip side of this same argument is that a thief's backstab specifically has no analogous restriction. Basically, if the anatomy is vaguely familiar, then the backstab is fine. Thus, whether an elf, elephant, or eel, the bonus applies, although undead, elementals, golems, and the like are safe.

Which model should I use? Should I assume assassins may not understand body functions in other species but know "where it hurts" or should I be a realistic dick? A ranger's bonus applies to a VERY wide class of creatures -- from kobolds and goblins to orcs and ogres and on to giants of all sorts. Since assassins get a smaller bonus (1/2 of a ranger) it does make some sense to allow them to use it on a wider variety of targets.

Thoughts?
David
aka
Erik the, er, witch

[David]

Follow-on question: should it be possible and how many skill slots should it cost for an assassin to then apply their dmg bonus against "restricted" targets (such as undead or golems)?

For instance, if a given assassin ALSO has the Healer skill, then they know all about body mechanics, bones, etc. Could such a PC then take "bodily anatomy" as a non-weapon and then be allowed to use their assassin bonuses against corporeal undead with the idea that instead of going to crucial organs, the assassin is striking for weak points in the joints and bones. Perhaps one non-weapon could equate to HALF the damage bonus (or one category less on the backstab), and a full weapon (with sufficient justification) could then allow FULL damage for both.

Similarly, I can see an assassin who works with a tinkerer or other "mechanical" type developing a skill so that they can attack a golem in the joints and mechanical "weak spots".

Thoughts?

David
aka
Erik (who bought this skill many years ago but never had the ability nailed down)

[charbidge]

Broad application will make it more fun, since it would be easier for players to do spectacular attacks in the midst of heroic deeds. It's not an engineering excercise. we have all the realism we neen in that sandy place.

[sgeorge1701]

My thoughts are on the technical difference between "assassination" and "backstabbing".

A Backstab is a "traitous" attack - not always necessary to be silent.

An Assassin - wants a swift and quiet death.

In this regards you have traitors stabbing the Pirate captain in the middle of a huge battle and the thief does not CARE that the captain knows - in fact, he gloats on screen!

Whereas, assassinating a Horse - is folly - the animal will SCREAM with all the power of a wounded animal, you can't put your hand over the mouth of a horse and expect it to go quietly!

An Assassin's Bonus on a sub-human character, to me, is pointless, the animal (physiology aside) has behaviour methods that differ from humans - donkeys kick, snakes will coil, sharks will attack mindlessly. These all preclude "assassinating and disappearing into the shadows"

This to me - also jumps in the face of assassinating the undead - you CAN'T get away. And the creature WILL retaliate (Assassinations wany quick, quiet and ESCAPE!).

Undead, just won't die.

Just say "no" to assassins

Steve

[David]

Uh, yeah, I'm not sure if I understand your answer, Steven...

I THINK you're saying that assassins shouldn't get their bonus against non-humans. Now keep in mind that this bonus is given due an assassin's knowledge of anatomy. A thief's ability has never been fully identified.

[Jenn G]

I'm with Craig, we have enough detail. Further, I would argue that an assassin might attempt a back stab in a similar fashion to a thief in the midst of battle. In this case the sneakiness applies, but not necessarily taking the time to really figure out exactly which vertebrae they are attempting to wedge the knife between. Thoughts David?

[David]

Well, I'd be good with that Jenn.

The rules are very clear about what a thief can and cannot backstab. An assassin's ability is far less fleshed out. In the interest of simplicity, I've always said "if it's got analogous organs, go for it". It sounds like this is what people would like to maintain. Does that sum it up? 'Course, some creatures only APPEAR to have analogous organs (like Su and dopplegangers in general) but that's a whole different issue.

David

[Artec]

I am with Craig and Jen keep as is. It is what works best.

[sgeorge1701]

david said:

Uh, yeah, I'm not sure if I understand your answer, Steven...

I THINK you're saying that assassins shouldn't get their bonus against non-humans. Now keep in mind that this bonus is given due an assassin's knowledge of anatomy. A thief's ability has never been fully identified.

Assassination is not just landing a deadly blow - it is "Assassinating" a figure. That includes "covering the mouth, so the king doesn't scream, hunting and lying in wait, etc.

It really isn't a "combat ready" when compared to the backstab. An assassin wants a dead victim and then a stealthy escape. That is a different objective.

Steve

[charbidge]

Do assassins really study anatomy? The ones who got julius Caeser, or Presients Lincoln, McKinley, or Kennedy didn't appear to so much, not did the guy who did in Franz Ferdinand. and... hit men?

I think if the assassin just plans and carries out a detailed and imaginative attempt, the GM ought to just go with it, and save detailed (and often merely fussy) rules for creating kingdomes and stuff. The story should be more important than all the die-rolls (but then, I think that about every aspect of all this gaming).

[aaronthecow]

lol
There was just a thread on another post bord saying that a guy was making "RPGulid" and said it was a "rollplaying" game not a "roll-playing" game. the chance to hit and damage are done by how well you rollplay; it chracked me up.

[David]

Craig and company,

The reason I ask this question is because in Dnd monks gain the ability to do extra damage "due to knowledge of anatomy gained through study." Now, reasonably, any assassin worth his salty should know where to stab someone and how (especially if you've ever read any of the Taltos books or watched a James Bond film!). So, I've extended this ability to assassins too, although removed the "auto-kill" percentage. In addition, like thieves, assassins get a back stab. So, the two abilities have a level of synergy. A moderate (5th lvl) assassin gets +3 dmg with a weapon due to knowing where to nail someone, which is enough to pretty much guarantee any "norm" will be stunned-if-not-killed with a single weapon hit. Moreover, said assassin would get x3 dmg on a back stab or weapon x3 + 9, which should terminally end any non-hero. This modification I've made also makes assassins more dangerous in face-to-face combat than thieves, which makes sense too (think about Drizz't vs Artemis Entreri).

The problem is, placing some constraints on the ability so it doesn't run amok. A thief is not allowed to backstab an ameoba. And an assassin (or monk) should NOT get an "anatomy" bonus against such a creature either. The question however is, where on this "slope" do analogous creatures lie? Sure, anything that's a humanoid biped is a gimme, but what about a tiger, a horse, a centaur, a griffon, etc?

It sounds like folks are saying "close and analogous is good enough" and that might be the answer. That means, however, that the DM might suddenly say "no, tarrasque anatomy is totally different, so the spleen (or whatever) is not where you thought it would be so no bonus for you". Or, stealing a Star Trek analogy, if Erik wanted to nail a vulcan in the heart, too bad for him, cuz it's not in the same place!

As for Caesar, Lincoln, Kennedy, et al's assassins, well, performing an action doesn't make you a member of a given class (think about that!). Yeah, Brutus stabbed the old boy, but he was a warrior by training. John Wilkes Booth was a friggen actor! In contrast, however, there are many individuals who spend their entire lives training themselves on the best way to kill another human being. These individuals have the class (as opposed to simply having performed the action of an) assassin and would therefore have some measure of the skills I'm talking about (such as the ninja, the hashshashin of Islam, or even the "saviors of a nation" proposed by both Sun Tzu and Machiavelli).

Make sense?
David

[Jeff]

howzabout it applies if you have partially humanoid anatomy (e.g. centaurs)