D&D 5E [GUIDE] Dealing Death: Handbook of the True Assassin

Noctem · Dec 15, 2015

Horwath said:
rogue 12/fighter 8.

you get 7 feats and 6d6 sneak attack, 2 attacks, no fail skills,

feats: alert, sharpshooter, skulker, observant, lucky, and +4 dex

You might want to discuss with your DM what Skulker would actually grant you in terms of benefits post stealth errata. Now that you only need to be "unclearly seen" instead of unseen to hide, it's possible that the chief benefit of Skulker is now redundant since being lightly obscured / having half cover is by definition what being unclearly seen means. You could save yourself a feat or could come up with an alternate benefit together.

MindxKiller · Dec 15, 2015

UngeheuerLich said:
If you want guaranteed high ability checks, add bard 2. Leave fighter at 6 or even fighter at 5 and bard at 3. Jack of all trades and rogue reliable talent work together which with alert will make your initiative check at least 23 at level 20. With cutting words you will beat everyone's initiative reliably. Maybe even be bard 6 and fighter 2 so you have action surge and magical secrets for haste or hunter's mark. No battlemaster dice though.
You could also be champion for remarkable athlete to make your initiative quite unfailable. Criting outside surprise rounds at 19 and 20 is a nice added benefit.

Eh, Jack of all Trades only lets you add half your proficiency bonus, Reliable Talent specifies proficiency bonus as a requirement, since any ability check that Jack of all Trades applies to inherently doesn't benefit from your proficiency bonus, it cant work together.

UngeheuerLich · Dec 15, 2015

MindxKiller said:
Eh, Jack of all Trades only lets you add half your proficiency bonus, Reliable Talent specifies proficiency bonus as a requirement, since any ability check that Jack of all Trades applies to inherently doesn't benefit from your proficiency bonus, it cant work together.

Nope, by definition, in the proficiency bonus section, it is stated, that proficiency bonus is proficiency bonus, and it does not matter if you double or halve it. And a recent tweet by Jeremy Crawford (december 4) supported my reading.

UngeheuerLich · Dec 15, 2015

Noctem said:
You might want to discuss with your DM what Skulker would actually grant you in terms of benefits post stealth errata. Now that you only need to be "unclearly seen" instead of unseen to hide, it's possible that the chief benefit of Skulker is now redundant since being lightly obscured / having half cover is by definition what being unclearly seen means. You could save yourself a feat or could come up with an alternate benefit together.

Stying hidden and atempting to hide are different things. Skulker lets you hide while being observed in light obscurement, while the normal stealth rules only allow you to remain hidden in such conditions.

Noctem · Dec 15, 2015

UngeheuerLich said:
Stying hidden and atempting to hide are different things. Skulker lets you hide while being observed in light obscurement, while the normal stealth rules only allow you to remain hidden in such conditions.

incorrect. Errata has been published which has changed the rules for hiding to only requiring that you be unclearly seen. Being observed while unclearly seen is irrelevant for the question of if you can hide or not. If you're unclearly seen, you can hide. To be clear this is the errata:

Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly.

So DM's have always been the ones to decide if you can hide, that goes without saying. But the second line is huge for stealthy characters. Enjoy

UngeheuerLich · Dec 15, 2015

Read the whole paragraph in the errated book and the intend is clearer. But if you read the passage you quote carefully, you might notice that the last sentence refers to the second: "... when you are hiding". This is the passive part. The skulker feat refers to "trying to hide." If the bullet was obsolete, they had errated that too as with the grappler feat... play as you like and enjoy it...

Noctem · Dec 15, 2015

UngeheuerLich said:
Read the whole paragraph in the errated book and the intend is clearer. But if you read the passage you quote carefully, you might notice that the last sentence refers to the second: "... when you are hiding". This is the passive part. The skulker feat refers to "trying to hide." If the bullet was obsolete, they had errated that too as with the grappler feat... play as you like and enjoy it...

Hiding in the sentence is being used as both the act of hiding and being hidden. That's how the rules describe rolling stealth to hide and being hidden, hiding. What you're attempting to do is differentiate between the act and the state. The errata and the rules themselves make no such distinction. You can thank the purposeful ambiguity of the rules for that one. The fact that they didn't specifically say something like "when you are hidden". Using the general term "hiding" instead makes the distinction you're attempting to make nonsensical. The rules also don't make a difference between requirements to become and later lose hidden. Pre errata, if you were seen you couldn't hide and if you were hidden you would lose hidden. The only way around that were the skulker feat, halfling racial ability and elven ability. Post errata, anytime you are deemed unclearly seen by the DM, since the DM decides when you can hide or not, you can hide and remaining hidden also only requires to be unclearly seen. Skulker's main benefit is now useless. The only way it's not useless is if they specifically state that half cover and light obscurement don't make you unclearly seen. In which case they would then need to explain what being unclearly seen means in 5e.

MindxKiller · Dec 15, 2015

UngeheuerLich said:
Nope, by definition, in the proficiency bonus section, it is stated, that proficiency bonus is proficiency bonus, and it does not matter if you double or halve it. And a recent tweet by Jeremy Crawford (december 4) supported my reading.

I stand corrected.

bockscarrasor · Dec 17, 2015

From this Sage Advice pdf:

Does Crossbow Expert let you fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action? It does! Take a look at the feat’s third benefit. It says you can attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action when you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon. A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, so it can, indeed, be used for both attacks, assuming you have a hand free to load the hand crossbow between the two attacks.

So, I would have to attack with the crossbow in one hand then a melee in another. Then next turn I would have to reload the crossbow to use it again. Is the crossbow expert still worth it?

Noctem · Dec 17, 2015

bockscarrasor said:
From this Sage Advice pdf:

Does Crossbow Expert let you fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action? It does! Take a look at the feat’s third benefit. It says you can attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action when you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon. A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, so it can, indeed, be used for both attacks, assuming you have a hand free to load the hand crossbow between the two attacks.

So, I would have to attack with the crossbow in one hand then a melee in another. Then next turn I would have to reload the crossbow to use it again. Is the crossbow expert still worth it?

Actually here's the rub. You can't reload a crossbow, even a one handed crossbow without a free hand. This is something that was clarified a few months ago. So if you have the traditional melee weapon in one hand and the hand crossbow in the other, you can't reload. You have to sheathe or drop the melee weapon to free your hand and then you can reload. However, reloading is part of the attack that you make meaning that there's no action requirement on your part. So don't worry about that, just make sure you have a free hand. If you're using crossbows, that feat is imo a mandatory requirement at some point. Either because you have multiple attacks per attack action, or need something to do with your bonus action or both.

D&D 5E [GUIDE] Dealing Death: Handbook of the True Assassin

Noctem

Explorer

MindxKiller

Explorer

UngeheuerLich

Legend

UngeheuerLich

Legend

Noctem

Explorer

UngeheuerLich

Legend

Noctem

Explorer

MindxKiller

Explorer

bockscarrasor

First Post

Noctem

Explorer

Similar Threads