D&D 5E Why Is The Assassin Rpgue?

[DEFCON 1]

With the dozens of different ways DMs prefer to run their preferred rules of sneaking (both inside and outside of combat)... it doesn't surprise me that different tables have different experiences. 8-9 years ago when repeated threads here about the Stealth rules came up (because everyone hated how basic the 5E rules were and how they were spread out over several different chapters)... every single poster seemed to have a different desire and methodology for how they wanted Stealth to run. Some DMs just did not like and did not allow Hiding during combat AT ALL... rendering a lot of Rogue actions completely moot. But they just took the "You are always looking around for threats" to heart and would not allow PCs to gain the bonuses for attacking while Hidden. Whereas other DMs had no problems whatsoever in letting players duck behind Total Cover or become Heavily Obscured before or during combat and then roll Dexterity (Stealth) checks versus the enemy's Passive Perception numbers... and if the Stealth check was higher then either they gained Surprise at the top of combat (meaning the enemies whose PP was lower than the check could not act in the first round of combat-- since there technically is no 'surprise round' per se) or if during combat were now considered Hidden, and thus their next attack would be with Advantage.

And I wouldn't expect any of those opinions or feelings to have changed over the past decade. DMs gonna run their game no matter what the books might say.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

With the dozens of different ways DMs prefer to run their preferred rules of sneaking (both inside and outside of combat)... it doesn't surprise me that different tables have different experiences. 8-9 years ago when repeated threads here about the Stealth rules came up (because everyone hated how basic the 5E rules were and how they were spread out over several different chapters)... every single poster seemed to have a different desire and methodology for how they wanted Stealth to run. Some DMs just did not like and did not allow Hiding during combat AT ALL... rendering a lot of Rogue actions completely moot. But they just took the "You are always looking around for threats" to heart and would not allow PCs to gain the bonuses for attacking while Hidden. Whereas other DMs had no problems whatsoever in letting players duck behind Total Cover or become Heavily Obscured before or during combat and then roll Dexterity (Stealth) checks versus the enemy's Passive Perception numbers... and if the Stealth check was higher then either they gained Surprise at the top of combat (meaning the enemies whose PP was lower than the check could not act in the first round of combat-- since there technically is no 'surprise round' per se) or if during combat were now considered Hidden, and thus their next attack would be with Advantage.

And I wouldn't expect any of those opinions or feelings to have changed over the past decade. DMs gonna run their game no matter what the books might say.

Yep, which is why other stealth oriented archetypes in the game don’t try to only work if you are able to execute one very specific strategy regularly.

 

[jgsugden]

If you have to optimize just to make it playable, it’s a bad subclass.

I would characterize it as efficient, for the time, but a long shot from optimized. I could do a heck of a lot better ... although I would never go 100% rogue on any optimized build. The class, in general, is weaker than other classes.

And even then, it’s still basically a rogue with no subclass after that one attack in the first round. Inquisitive is better than that.

The most important round of any combat is the first - and taking a meaningful foe out before it can act is a huge contribution.

Seriously? You are getting surprise every single combat?

I genuinely struggle to believe that that is the case. Like I'm not trying to say it wasn't your experience, but I can count the number of times I have ever had surprise while playing 5e on one hand.

For a number of years, I could have counted it on no hands.

As mentioned, DM playstyle will impact the ability to get surprise. However, if you, as a player, made it clear to the DM that your PC was trying to scout and be stealthy so that the party could get a surprise round, and your PC has reasonable stats for doing so, and you failed to ever get surprise in years of D&D, there are only three options:

1.) That DM didn't allow it and likely could use some suggestions to improve their game,
2.) You are a $%&#-poor tactician [as in sneaking while holding a lit lamp in a dark setting, casting guidance on yourself as you are hidden around the corner and in ear shot, relying upon darkness for concealment when attacking things with darkvision, etc...], or
3.) You have amazingly bad luck (not rolling about a 5(?) in years of stealth checks].

Seriously.

If you've got a significant other, try sneaking up on them. You'll find it isn't that hard - at all - to sneak up on someone that is not focused on you. The game core mechanics reflect this truth. The mechanics are a bit vague, but the core ideas come through and I see pretty consistent interpretation on the part of DMs.

A typical first level rogue has a +7 to stealth as it is the most common expertise choice. That means that the typical monster with a passive perception of 10 is only get to spot them coming 10 or 15% of the time depending upon how the DM rules the check (in other words - who the tie benefits). The rogue should know the enemy is there, even before the can see the enemy, unless the enemy is hiding or a special circumstance arises. The 1st level rogue - when trying - should almost always be able to surprise someone.

Now, if you don't try to be sneaky, then you should never get surprise. Unless you're hidden, you teleport in, or the DM rules you're too far away to be automatically detected, you should not get a surprise round (generally). However - in every game in which I've played, the group (usually at my suggestion if nobody else raises it first) will attempt to be stealthy and get surprise rounds ... and with dozens and dozens of DMs in the 5E era as evidence - DMs rarely, if ever, don't give us a fair chance.

I will also note that certain allies may make it impossible too. I did play in games with PCs that either thought sneaking around was dishonorable, or it was fun to let the enemy know we were coming to scare them, or just enjoyed being brash. However, that tends to be the exception - not the norm.

Just being honest here - if you've never been able to sneak and get a surprise round in years and years of D&D, it calls into question your understanding of the game. It should jump out to you that there is a significant, and often discussed, mechanic in the game intended to be available to every party - and you never see it used. That should have been a red flag every time you saw someone write anything about surprise. That is akin to not realizing your car doesn't have seat belts after driving it for several years.

 

[jgsugden]

...A CR 3 vs a 3rd level party is a waste of everyone's time to even roll initiative. The conclusion is foregone, with no risk. Why not get it over with quickly?

First - I agree that a CR 3 monster being assassinated by a 3rd level assassin before it can act is reasonable (for some CR 3 monsters), at least. The PC is an assassin - and that is a way for them to be an assassin and feel like an assassin.

However, your general statement is not a great look at the game. A CR 3 solo monster encounter for a level 3 party of 4 PCs is actually a Medium difficulty encounter. The DMG recommends these take place - and is right to do so. The DMG also notes - that by intent - there is really no risk to the lives of the PCs in these medium encounters.

So why have fights that the PCs are guaranteed to survive?

#1: It makes the PCs feel powerful.
#2: Because dying is not the only way to fail.

Let's say I put an Ogre Chain Brute (AC 11, 59 hp) on guard outside a cave. Inside the cave is an entire tribe of foes. It is a horrible choice for a guard given their lousy perception - but when might makes right, the chief of the tribe may value their ability to fight over their perceptiveness. As it has no ranged weapon, it may be a horrible choice as a guard, really.

As the PCs approach this cave there could be several ways for thePCs to fail that do not involve being hurt, much less dying. The ogre could raise an alarm. The ogre could retreat into cave and get total cover. The ogre could set off a trap that makes life for the PCs harder.

I through a few kobolds at high level parties here and there because the story says it should happen ... and sometimes those 13th level parties fail in the encounter because they don't realize the risks they face.

I've play in a lot of games where the DM felt a need to make every combat a deadly encounter. They get offended when the PCs stomp on their monsters. They want every encounter to be a "just barely" win by the PCs. Those games, in general, are boring games. The DMs tend to focus on making them so close that the PCs don't really matter. If the PCs are winning too easily, the DM makes it harder to make it 'more interesting'. If the combat is too hard, the DM has the monsters make dumb decisions to "give the PCs a chance". The DM is essentially counterbalancing whatever the PCs do - which essentially negates their contribution. Whatever the PCs elect to do, the outcome is always the same. The DM might as well be playing with themselves.

It is better to include a variety of encounter difficulties, have different 'win criteria' beyond just living and dying, and then let the chips fall where they may on game day.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would characterize it as efficient, for the time, but a long shot from optimized. I could do a heck of a lot better ... although I would never go 100% rogue on any optimized build. The class, in general, is weaker than other classes. The most important round of any combat is the first - and taking a meaningful foe out before it can act is a huge contribution. As mentioned, DM playstyle will impact the ability to get surprise. However, if you, as a player, made it clear to the DM that your PC was trying to scout and be stealthy so that the party could get a surprise round, and your PC has reasonable stats for doing so, and you failed to ever get surprise in years of D&D, there are only three options:

1.) That DM didn't allow it and likely could use some suggestions to improve their game,
2.) You are a $%&#-poor tactician [as in sneaking while holding a lit lamp in a dark setting, casting guidance on yourself as you are hidden around the corner and in ear shot, relying upon darkness for concealment when attacking things with darkvision, etc...], or
3.) You have amazingly bad luck (not rolling about a 5(?) in years of stealth checks].

Seriously.

If you've got a significant other, try sneaking up on them. You'll find it isn't that hard - at all - to sneak up on someone that is not focused on you. The game core mechanics reflect this truth. The mechanics are a bit vague, but the core ideas come through and I see pretty consistent interpretation on the part of DMs.

A typical first level rogue has a +7 to stealth as it is the most common expertise choice. That means that the typical monster with a passive perception of 10 is only get to spot them coming 10 or 15% of the time depending upon how the DM rules the check (in other words - who the tie benefits). The rogue should know the enemy is there, even before the can see the enemy, unless the enemy is hiding or a special circumstance arises. The 1st level rogue - when trying - should almost always be able to surprise someone.

Now, if you don't try to be sneaky, then you should never get surprise. Unless you're hidden, you teleport in, or the DM rules you're too far away to be automatically detected, you should not get a surprise round (generally). However - in every game in which I've played, the group (usually at my suggestion if nobody else raises it first) will attempt to be stealthy and get surprise rounds ... and with dozens and dozens of DMs in the 5E era as evidence - DMs rarely, if ever, don't give us a fair chance.

I will also note that certain allies may make it impossible too. I did play in games with PCs that either thought sneaking around was dishonorable, or it was fun to let the enemy know we were coming to scare them, or just enjoyed being brash. However, that tends to be the exception - not the norm.

Just being honest here - if you've never been able to sneak and get a surprise round in years and years of D&D, it calls into question your understanding of the game. It should jump out to you that there is a significant, and often discussed, mechanic in the game intended to be available to every party - and you never see it used. That should have been a red flag every time you saw someone write anything about surprise. That is akin to not realizing your car doesn't have seat belts after driving it for several years.

You gotta know I’m never gonna read an essay about what does or doesn’t count as optimization and whatever else you’re on about here.

I stopped reading once you were on a tangent about sneaking up one people IRL, as if that has any impact whatsoever on the game rules, or indeed the point of the thread or the post you’re replying to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also, taking sharpshooter playing in the one specific way that avoids any need for the party to cooperate with you getting your precious ambush strike is optimizing, regardless of any “I could optimize way harder” nonsense, and reliably getting to ambush kill from 600 feet away is beyond generous DMing. I’d go so far as to say it’s a DM bending the world to make your pc effective in spite of their weak subclass.

The first round of combat is not so important that you can just have a subclass that goes away after that round, even if the PC fails to hit in that round or fails to get surprise. (And seriously, again, if you’re always getting surprise, the DM is catering to your PC to a degree that proves that the subclass is weaker than ones that don’t require such special treatment.

 

[jgsugden]

You gotta know I’m never gonna read an essay about what does or doesn’t count as optimization and whatever else you’re on about here.

Check. You don't know anything about optimization, yet talk about it authoritatively. Noted.

I stopped reading once you were on a tangent about sneaking up one people IRL, as if that has any impact whatsoever on the game rules, or indeed the point of the thread or the post you’re replying to.

Check. You didn't bother trying to understand a post and discarded it because it didn't seem to align to your understanding.

Got it.

If you have to optimize just to make it playable, it’s a bad subclass.

And even then, it’s still basically a rogue with no subclass after that one attack in the first round. Inquisitive is better than that.

Also, taking sharpshooter playing in the one specific way that avoids any need for the party to cooperate with you getting your precious ambush strike is optimizing, regardless of any “I could optimize way harder” nonsense, and reliably getting to ambush kill from 600 feet away is beyond generous DMing. I’d go so far as to say it’s a DM bending the world to make your pc effective in spite of their weak subclass.

OK, I do now see your trouble in understanding the idea of optimization. It isn't the idea that you make one of several decent choices - it is the idea that you make the choice that is optimal.

The first round of combat is not so important that you can just have a subclass that goes away after that round, even if the PC fails to hit in that round or fails to get surprise. (And seriously, again, if you’re always getting surprise, the DM is catering to your PC to a degree that proves that the subclass is weaker than ones that don’t require such special treatment.

While the entire subclass does not go away after one round (there are other parts of the subclass beyond this ability) it is built around the first round. And, that is iconic to the idea of an assassin - the theme of the subclass. The one, swift, sudden, lethal hit.

If you don't like it, fine. However, it has worked well for me and others. Dictating to others that it can't be an ok subclass based upon your views when others find it fine is ... an odd choice.

And just to note it - several classes have the "one big round and then just participate without your most powerful element":

For example, warlocks get to cast two spells per short rest - or about 1 per combat. and fighters get just 1 action surge per short rest. Assassins often get to assassinate more than fighters action surge or warlocks cast spells- if run intelligently and with a DM that is open to surprise rounds occuring.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Check. You don't know anything about optimization, yet talk about it authoritatively. Noted.Check.

You didn't bother trying to understand a post and discarded it because it didn't seem to align to your understanding.

If this is your only response to criticism, that’s not great. Certainly doesn’t encourage one to give any particular consideration to your arrogantly stated opinions.

Got it.OK, I do now see your trouble in understanding the idea of optimization. It isn't the idea that you make one of several decent choices - it is the idea that you make the choice that is optimal.

Incorrect. Optimization is not binary.

That you think it is shows a deeply, fundementally, flawed concept of how these games even function, what role optimization has in them, and what discussions like this are even for.

 

[jgsugden]

Incorrect. Optimization is not binary.

Again, telling us you have done nothing to understand optimization, then turning around and lecturing on it ... is an odd choice.

However, as a reminder, the definition of optimization is the action of making the best or most effective use of a situation or resource. As such, it is about the single, one, best option. Thus, it is about the one option that is best. If it is either optimal or not, it is, in fact, binary.
Optimizing is the act of seeking the optimal. An optimized option is the best option. The assassin I played was efficient ... but far from optimal.

That you think it is shows a deeply, fundementally, flawed concept of how these games even function, what role optimization has in them, and what discussions like this are even for.

That is one hard sentence to parse. I think you're saying that I, as a player that has tens of thousands of hours of play experience, and much more than that in discussing the game, planning for games, etc... don't understand anything because I think an optimized build would be one that is the best for a given purpose rather than just one that does some stuff pretty well, but could be better. If so ... well, good luck.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would characterize it as efficient, for the time, but a long shot from optimized. I could do a heck of a lot better ... although I would never go 100% rogue on any optimized build. The class, in general, is weaker than other classes. The most important round of any combat is the first - and taking a meaningful foe out before it can act is a huge contribution. As mentioned, DM playstyle will impact the ability to get surprise. However, if you, as a player, made it clear to the DM that your PC was trying to scout and be stealthy so that the party could get a surprise round, and your PC has reasonable stats for doing so, and you failed to ever get surprise in years of D&D, there are only three options:

1.) That DM didn't allow it and likely could use some suggestions to improve their game,
2.) You are a $%&#-poor tactician [as in sneaking while holding a lit lamp in a dark setting, casting guidance on yourself as you are hidden around the corner and in ear shot, relying upon darkness for concealment when attacking things with darkvision, etc...], or
3.) You have amazingly bad luck (not rolling about a 5(?) in years of stealth checks].

Seriously.

If you've got a significant other, try sneaking up on them. You'll find it isn't that hard - at all - to sneak up on someone that is not focused on you. The game core mechanics reflect this truth. The mechanics are a bit vague, but the core ideas come through and I see pretty consistent interpretation on the part of DMs.

A typical first level rogue has a +7 to stealth as it is the most common expertise choice. That means that the typical monster with a passive perception of 10 is only get to spot them coming 10 or 15% of the time depending upon how the DM rules the check (in other words - who the tie benefits). The rogue should know the enemy is there, even before the can see the enemy, unless the enemy is hiding or a special circumstance arises. The 1st level rogue - when trying - should almost always be able to surprise someone.

Now, if you don't try to be sneaky, then you should never get surprise. Unless you're hidden, you teleport in, or the DM rules you're too far away to be automatically detected, you should not get a surprise round (generally). However - in every game in which I've played, the group (usually at my suggestion if nobody else raises it first) will attempt to be stealthy and get surprise rounds ... and with dozens and dozens of DMs in the 5E era as evidence - DMs rarely, if ever, don't give us a fair chance.

I will also note that certain allies may make it impossible too. I did play in games with PCs that either thought sneaking around was dishonorable, or it was fun to let the enemy know we were coming to scare them, or just enjoyed being brash. However, that tends to be the exception - not the norm.

Just being honest here - if you've never been able to sneak and get a surprise round in years and years of D&D, it calls into question your understanding of the game. It should jump out to you that there is a significant, and often discussed, mechanic in the game intended to be available to every party - and you never see it used. That should have been a red flag every time you saw someone write anything about surprise. That is akin to not realizing your car doesn't have seat belts after driving it for several years.

The first point was the correct one. No amount of attempting to sneak would ensure surprise in many, if not nearly all combats. Particularly as, in my experience, DMs force it to be an all or nothing thing. Either everyone in the party is part of the sneaking or no one is in most cases.

And of course if you weren't allowed to know that a combat was coming (which happens probably a third or more of the time), there's no possibility that you could prepare and sneak first.

"The DM...likely could use some suggestions to improve their game" has been by far the most common experience I have ever had with D&D 5e. I have attempted to provide those suggestions. I've learned not to bother with most DMs: more than half the time, they patronizingly "listen" and then ignore you, and more than half of the remainder they become outright hostile. They will run the game into the ground their way, and you are either adorable or a problem if you suggest otherwise.