How do you handle Rogue (Assassins)?

[nswanson27]

I would say rather focusing on the assassin subclass, try to speed up the time that it takes to scout, hide, and strike.

 

[rgoodbb]

I would say rather focusing on the assassin subclass, try to speed up the time that it takes to scout, hide, and strike.

Yes. Or as one or two others have stated, find something interesting for the rest of the party to do while this is happening. The OP is not starting that Assassinate needs tinkering. They are wondering how to engage the others. (That is how I read it).

Let's list some things that the rest of the party could be doing...

 

[iserith]

Let's list some things that the rest of the party could be doing...

Thinking of ways to improve the assassin sub-class.

 

[pogre]

I would say rather focusing on the assassin subclass, try to speed up the time that it takes to scout, hide, and strike.

Fair enough. That's a legitimate avenue to address the "problem."

I guess I am in the minority of those who have experienced rogues going off to do their own things and leaving the rest of the party waiting.

Lots of good suggestions here. Thank you! I certainly have food for thought.

 

[AriochQ]

Fair enough. That's a legitimate avenue to address the "problem."

I guess I am in the minority of those who have experienced rogues going off to do their own things and leaving the rest of the party waiting.

Lots of good suggestions here. Thank you! I certainly have food for thought.

I am sure you are not the only one. I try to subtly discourage groups from splitting the party for long periods of time. Although it is realistic, and tactically advantageous, for a rogue to scout ahead, it is incredibly tedious and boring for everyone else at the table.

 

[ccs]

Assuming there's something important going on that a brief description & a stealth check won't cover....
I'd (and any of the other DMs in the group) handle the rogue sneaking around ahead of the party the same as any other character action.

I'd spend a few turns on the rogue, then turn my attention back to the next group of characters & spend a few turns there. Repeat as often as required until all separate groups have had a moment, then back to the rogue & start over.

When this happens I'm only spending about 5 minutes or so per separate group. Now granted, if all 5 players have their characters dash off in 5 separate directions those 5 minute segments will add up & I guess an outsider could argue the game would slow down. But it's slowing down because that's what the players want, so.....

We're also not on any time limit. Sure, we're only playing 6pm - 10pm each week. But there's no mandate that we must accomplish x amount of stuff within those 4 hours. So, assuming no personal problems/unexpected work changes/RL extinction lv events, we'll just pick up where ever we left off next week.
Nor are we just sitting there mute & inactive when the DM is focused on a group. We're BSing, doing whatever on our phones, paying attention & offering commentary, one guy is always building tanks for a miniatures game, looking up something getting ready for our coming section, Bsing, etc etc etc. We're not bored.

I would not modify the rules to encourage any player to stick with the group.

 

[iserith]

I am sure you are not the only one. I try to subtly discourage groups from splitting the party for long periods of time. Although it is realistic, and tactically advantageous, for a rogue to scout ahead, it is incredibly tedious and boring for everyone else at the table.

Also an issue in scouting with a familiar. I have something of a solution for that on Roll20, but at a table game, it's the worst.

 

[pogre]

Nor are we just sitting there mute & inactive when the DM is focused on a group. We're BSing, doing whatever on our phones, paying attention & offering commentary, one guy is always building tanks for a miniatures game, looking up something getting ready for our coming section, Bsing, etc etc etc. We're not bored.

I would not modify the rules to encourage any player to stick with the group.

That's a very legitimate play style that seems to work well for your group and that is awesome. It also is very different from what I want at my table. I don't want people to take the game "seriously" per se, but I do want everyone engaged most of the time. I prefer that players are not distracted by phones, models, side conversations, etc.

Again, not intended as a criticism of how your table operates - just wanted to elaborate on my goals for my table's playing style.

 

[AriochQ]

Assuming there's something important going on that a brief description & a stealth check won't cover....
I'd (and any of the other DMs in the group) handle the rogue sneaking around ahead of the party the same as any other character action.

I'd spend a few turns on the rogue, then turn my attention back to the next group of characters & spend a few turns there. Repeat as often as required until all separate groups have had a moment, then back to the rogue & start over.

When this happens I'm only spending about 5 minutes or so per separate group. Now granted, if all 5 players have their characters dash off in 5 separate directions those 5 minute segments will add up & I guess an outsider could argue the game would slow down. But it's slowing down because that's what the players want, so.....

We're also not on any time limit. Sure, we're only playing 6pm - 10pm each week. But there's no mandate that we must accomplish x amount of stuff within those 4 hours. So, assuming no personal problems/unexpected work changes/RL extinction lv events, we'll just pick up where ever we left off next week.
Nor are we just sitting there mute & inactive when the DM is focused on a group. We're BSing, doing whatever on our phones, paying attention & offering commentary, one guy is always building tanks for a miniatures game, looking up something getting ready for our coming section, Bsing, etc etc etc. We're not bored.

I would not modify the rules to encourage any player to stick with the group.

Mileage will vary with this method. One of my concerns would be that the rogue would tend to monopolize all the 'ah-ha' moments. They see everything first and tend to make most of the checks. For short intervals that isn't bad, but on a continuing basis I am betting most of my groups would grow bored (and start building tanks during the session! hahah).

It really comes down to how you balance the realism/fun dynamic. In a realistic setting it makes perfect sense for a rogue to always scout ahead. In a 'we play this game for fun' setting, it tends to detract from the fun factor for everyone else. There is no right answer, it all depends on what a group prefers.

 

[Sleepy Walker]

Except that is not a Surprised enemy.

The party is not making Stealth rolls and the two groups spot each other. No one is Surprised.

Even if your DM rules that the Rogue is being Stealthy and that is enough, once the first decision to attack is made, the rules state you must begin rolling Initiative. After all, if the target rolls high enough in Initiative, they can go first and, even though they cannot do anything their first round, they are no longer Surprised. This means that the Assassinate doesn't happen with the first enemy, but it also means that Assassinate cannot happen with any other creature - the Surprised condition can only be conferred on the first round of Initiative.

Now, keep in mind... I'm not a rules lawyer, nor would i try and absolutely shut down the kind of idea you are suggesting at my table. But here's the problem - the only people I know who actively say the Assassin isn't terrible are people who either don't abide by or don't understand Surprised rules as they exist in 5e. There are such rare circumstances that this would ever come up that it makes the ability nearly worthless, even when you have the entire party switching their playstyle to try and make it work for the PC.



Also, your entire concept suggests scenarios where enemies would be okay with engaging in conversation with the party before being murdered. That's not going to happen very often, considering the vast majority of creatures in the MM, as an example, don't speak Common.

Ahh, but that assumes there are no neutral or friendly characters which would not be expecting a person to suddenly stab them in the back the moment they turn around, but at the same time those characters are presenting a significant obstacle to the PCs (something an evil or neutral assassin might figure a quick stab will rectify better than doing something else to achieve a goal).

A simple situation would be some entity of the time is convinced he/she/it has won the PCs over or otherwise has them in a position where they are doing what he/she/it wants. Assassin character needs to break sight with a believable excuse (Entity turns around to get something or do something, Entity is engaged in conversation with a party member, the rogue convinces the entity that he wants to do something in a different part of the room while entity is engaged), stealth high enough, be close enough, and then plant an appropriate weapon in he/she/it's back (or throw it). I know in the campaign I have played, which is a year long, there have been many a instance where a battle could have been made easier by this very action. Where the opponent is trying to trick the party, often times succeeding because we really seem to not like landing the first blow and just let a thing talk us into thinking it is what it says it is.

All of this is happening out of combat. RAW really only requires that the DM designate a creature surprised for a round. Just because it goes first does not mean it is not longer surprised. It could very well be that the rogue no longer gets its sneak attack dice, but it does get a critical hit at the least.

If the party is not in initiative, the opponent cannot see the aggressor, and the aggressor sneaks high enough to not be sensed or otherwise makes a ranged attack while not sensed, then it is a surprise round and somebody is surprised.