Maximizing the assassin and surprise rounds?

[djreynolds]

I've rolled a rogue and we are just about third level. Right now I'm in melee combat a lot. Not by choice but players leaving the game for school and such. This will be the first time I rolled 4d6 and did not use the 27 point buy in. But even with great scores, if I plan to stay rogue I will have to find some ranged way of competing or multiclass.

The assassin's auto crit sounds very appealing to me. And I like the arcane trickster and have played one. But now I'm torn between thief and assassin. I've played a thief multiclassed fighter and enjoyed him but he was a small dip.

So I wish to try the assassin now. Auto-crit sounds very powerful, but its not like its every round or turn. It is at the beginning of combat and seems tough to achieve.

How often am I getting into surprise rounds?

Is this something that I need to set up, like an ambush?

Most of the time we're moving in the woods or dungeon, and it seems we are the one's trying to avoid being ambushed.

Will I always be on point stalking with the ranger and then sneaking in for the kill, while my party awaits behind me for the signal?

So If I choose assassin how do you suggest acquiring these surprise rounds? They seem limited?

How often am I going to fail surprising my enemies? I see why skulker is nice?

And perhaps grabbing a few levels of wizard or warlock for some spells to help facilitate this?

And what to do about that barbarian (I'm so tired of theses folk) and other's with the alert feat themselves and of course spells, like alarm?

The assassin sounds cool, but is trying to get the assassinate ability to work, say, very dangerous in its own right?

I know it will be good stuff.

[hymer]

How often am I getting into surprise rounds?
Hugely table specific. I had a DM, who never let the players get surprise, and very often forced us to be surprised, rules be damned. On the other side of the screen, the party means a lot, too. If you're coupled with a cleric, a paladin and a fighter, all in heavy armour, odds are against you'll be getting surprise very often - unless you speak to the DM about it. S/he may allow you to get some sort of surprise if you personally have not been detected at the start of a fight.
If someone in the party can cast Pass without Trace, this can make a huge difference here.


Is this something that I need to set up, like an ambush?

Ideally you should not need to set it up every time, but hit and run tactics should be able to help. Very DM dependent, too. There's RAW to support it being impossible to get surprise after the first round of combat, which makes hit and run require you to leave initiative to start over. Can be tedious or impossible.
Setting up ambushes is generally a good idea, but people with good Stealth tend to suceed at it more often, of course.


Most of the time we're moving in the woods or dungeon, and it seems we are the one's trying to avoid being ambushed.

Then you need a highly capable scout. Someone who can sneak about (Stealth) and find the ambush before it happens (Perception). They can then report back. Good thing about enemy ambushes is that they tend to stay pretty stationary. So you can plan a counterambush.


Will I always be on point stalking with the ranger and then sneaking in for the kill, while my party awaits behind me for the signal?

Hopefully not, as that is a very exposed position. You should ideally dispose of the enemy lookouts only when starting from here.


So If I choose assassin how do you suggest acquiring these surprise rounds? They seem limited?

Talk to your DM about how exactly surprise will play out. And then stealth, stealth, stealth.


How often am I going to fail surprising my enemies? I see why skulker is nice?

Depends. I think I've covered this above.


And perhaps grabbing a few levels of wizard or warlock for some spells to help facilitate this?

Ideally this shouldn't be required. You need to keep your Sneak Attack damage up. Better to have equipment and friends that can help you get surprise than to multiclass, I think.


And what to do about that barbarian (I'm so tired of theses folk) and other's with the alert feat themselves and of course spells, like alarm?

Those are your counters to some degree; and a wide subject that would take a while to treat. You may have to live with them. But good scouting can help here, too (Detect Magic to find Alarm spells, and when you see a barbarian, you know you don't take them on from point position).


The assassin sounds cool, but is trying to get the assassinate ability to work, say, very dangerous in its own right?

Not in my experience.

In conclusion: Assassinate is nice. But it is not absolutely fundamental you get it off every fight. Just the more, the better.

[Thrudd]

From my understanding, you get the auto crit only on a round where your target is unaware of you and they haven't yet had a turn (ie the very first round before combat has started). To get that consistently, you would need to be stealthing out ahead of the party at a good distance most of the time. Yes, it can be very dangerous to do so. You know, though, there are many more opportunities to get normal sneak attack in a combat. Assassinate is something you'll be able to use occasionally, when the circumstances favor you; don't assume it will be possible in all or most combats.
Have you watched "Critical Role" on Geek and Sundry? They are playing 5e, and one of the players is an assassin. The DM is quite lenient with stealth and allowing sneak attacks, but you'll see him use the assassinate ability a few times over the course of the first ten sessions or so. Of course, they are already level 9 in the first episode. Stealthing alone would be a lot more dangerous for level 3.

[djreynolds]

It just seems the thief gets things that would be great for the assassin. And the disguise and poison use and use magic device and fast hands would go together well, while supreme sneak and climbing fast and assassinate would fit nice together.

I found that my arcane trickster used a lot of spells to get into combat and sneak attack, be great for assassinating people. UMD would be great for an assassin skill. Though I do like it with the thief because UMD has been around forever as thief ability

My thief originally was taken to 5 as part of a fighter cleric multiclass that was cool, but obviously was not a classic rogue.

I want to go high levels as this assassin, but I just think about dipping wizard for 4 levels for some of those 2nd level utility spells that it has.

[Mara]

Hello purple worm poison auto-crit (yes this damage can crit too)

At max level you're Assassinate is a DC 19 con save or basically die. If they fail take double crit damage so another DC 19 con save or 92d6+10 (332) damage. If they pass the second save they only take 64d6+10 (234) damage. Half that damage if they pass the first save.

[JackPhoenix]

Hello purple worm poison auto-crit (yes this damage can crit too)

At max level you're Assassinate is a DC 19 con save or basically die. If they fail take double crit damage so another DC 19 con save or 92d6+10 (332) damage. If they pass the second save they only take 64d6+10 (234) damage. Half that damage if they pass the first save.

As purple worm poison is save and not attack roll based, it can't crit.

[Mara]

As purple worm poison is save and not attack roll based, it can't crit.
it's both.

[MeeposFire]

Oh geez not this argument again. Just drop it people there is no good answer here.

The Sage made a comment already that he uses a non-existent rule that things with saves cannot crit even when applied with an attack roll. I say non-existent because the rule is never actually stated anywhere (the rules that are stated is that things with attack rolls crit which is not quite the same thing) but in a SA he does say that is an intention so those who like SA can use that as justification.

Those who do not care about SA of course will never be pleased with that and use the rules in the book that have stated that attacks can come with other special abilities, instead of or in addition to damage, and that these are part of an attack. Nowhere in it does it say that a saving throw being part of it changes that fact. Due to this those who like actual written rules will object to the SA ruling.

So in other words you will not get anywhere those who like SA rulings will not listen to the written rules that the other side brings up and those who like the written rules will disregard the SA in this case as it is not based on any actual written rules (just the stated intent of one of the authors of an unwritten rule which we cannot be sure was forgotten or taken out).

[Mara]

Oh geez not this argument again. Just drop it people there is no good answer here.

The Sage made a comment already that he uses a non-existent rule that things with saves cannot crit even when applied with an attack roll. I say non-existent because the rule is never actually stated anywhere (the rules that are stated is that things with attack rolls crit which is not quite the same thing) but in a SA he does say that is an intention so those who like SA can use that as justification.

Those who do not care about SA of course will never be pleased with that and use the rules in the book that have stated that attacks can come with other special abilities, instead of or in addition to damage, and that these are part of an attack. Nowhere in it does it say that a saving throw being part of it changes that fact. Due to this those who like actual written rules will object to the SA ruling.

So in other words you will not get anywhere those who like SA rulings will not listen to the written rules that the other side brings up and those who like the written rules will disregard the SA in this case as it is not based on any actual written rules (just the stated intent of one of the authors of an unwritten rule which we cannot be sure was forgotten or taken out).Good God, Is there an SA ruling that isn't garbage?

[sophontteks]

Good God, Is there an SA ruling that isn't garbage?
shield mastery, shield bashing can be done before an actual attack. Great ruling :smallbiggrin:

[Mara]

shield mastery, shield bashing can be done before an actual attack. Great ruling :smallbiggrin:

Oh look something that you could actually view as RAW but may be unclear about. THAT is how you answer an FAQ. (The rules seem to state that taking the attack action allows you to attack but does not mean you automatically start attacking)

[MeeposFire]

Good God, Is there an SA ruling that isn't garbage?

Yes but nobody talks about rulings that have no controversy.

[sophontteks]

Yeah the poison thing. It was brought up because some people were like "Hey, this makes no sense." and they responded "Your right, that's a mistake."
It happens. It doesn't make it a garbage ruling.

In the flip side of it, the ruling works in favor of the players most of the time. Things like spiders would be a more dangerous if their poison was doubled.

EDIT: Forgot I was supposed to ignore this and move on :P. My bad.

[Ardantis]

So, bottom line on the poison...?

[MeeposFire]

Yeah the poison thing. It was brought up because some people were like "Hey, this makes no sense." and they responded "Your right, that's a mistake."
It happens. It doesn't make it a garbage ruling.

In the flip side of it, the ruling works in favor of the players most of the time. Things like spiders would be a more dangerous if their poison was doubled.

EDIT: Forgot I was supposed to ignore this and move on :P. My bad.

The odd part is that not all poisons have saves for damage. The ones that do not (think drow, carrion crawlers, and I think basilisks) do double the poison damage while other creatures do not with this rule.

It also seems odd that a magic sword with +1d6 fire damage and a similar sword with +1d6 fire damage save for half one would crit but the other would not despite visually being the same.

Lastly also consider that the high level assassin ability makes the surprise round attack have a save for damage does that mean it now no longer can crit?

[MeeposFire]

So, bottom line on the poison...?

Ask yourself do you prefer the rules you see in your book or the stated intent of one of the designers about a non-written rule.

That is the only only question that needs to be answered.

If the Sage is important to how you play then you should not allow anything that has a save for damage to be affected by critical hits even when applied by an attack roll (you probably want to ignore the corner cases like the late assassins ability that adds a save for damage to it).

If you really value the written rules and are cool with the possibility of very high potential damage then allowing it to work as written can work for you.

EDIT: As an additional set of weirdness saving throw based abilities normally are fair because you can neither critically fumble or succeed. Attack rolls are fair because they can critical fumble and hit but saving throw abilities that are applied through an attack roll get the negative of being able to fail to be applied at all due to a roll of 1 but get none of the advantages of hitting with a 20 like everything else about damage applied with an attack roll.

[CNagy]

The odd part is that not all poisons have saves for damage. The ones that do not (think drow, carrion crawlers, and I think basilisks) do double the poison damage while other creatures do not with this rule.

It also seems odd that a magic sword with +1d6 fire damage and a similar sword with +1d6 fire damage save for half one would crit but the other would not despite visually being the same.

Lastly also consider that the high level assassin ability makes the surprise round attack have a save for damage does that mean it now no longer can crit?

Death Strike, itself, does not deal damage (it modifies the attack) and since Death Strike is what they are saving against, it has no affect on whether or not you get to crit with the attack that triggered Death Strike. To put it another way: if you had an ability that said "when you hit an opponent, they must make a Strength save or be knocked down," the presence of that save doesn't sudden make the attack ineligible for a critical hit. If that save ability dealt damage, like "when you hit an opponent, they make a Con save or else burst into flame, burning for 10 damage at the beginning of their turns until they take an action to put the fire out", that would not be eligible for critical damage but it wouldn't disqualify the attack that delivered the effect from being a critical hit. On top of that, no matter how the ruling was worded, Death Strike is a specific rule that would trump a general announcement of how saves and attack rolls interact.

But I thought the rule was actually pretty straight forward. Damage (dice) dealt directly by the attack was valid for critical hits, damage caused or mitigated by saves wasn't. We get caught up on things like poison having both automatic damage types and save damage types, but poison is just another element type in this system.

[Mara]

SA doesn't reference a rule though. It doesn't matter if you can make it work through further rulings and houserules.

If you play with SA homebrew, Good for you! I won't debate how those made up rules should work.

[bid]

So, bottom line on the poison...?
The bottom line on poison is that there are no rule to crit a save. MeeposFire makes a good argument on why there should be one, though.

I think it's great cinematic that a perfect hit dumps more poison in the target, but I feel it should affect the chance to save first and foremost.

Anyone can interpret RAW as they see fit, but I think there are strong arguments to keep the save separate from the attack.


If I was to homebrew it, I would save with disadvantage to account for the double dose.
(Because I feel evil, let me point out that some believe RAW adds proficiency to poison damage. Neat houserule though.)

[MeeposFire]

Death Strike, itself, does not deal damage (it modifies the attack) and since Death Strike is what they are saving against, it has no affect on whether or not you get to crit with the attack that triggered Death Strike. To put it another way: if you had an ability that said "when you hit an opponent, they must make a Strength save or be knocked down," the presence of that save doesn't sudden make the attack ineligible for a critical hit. If that save ability dealt damage, like "when you hit an opponent, they make a Con save or else burst into flame, burning for 10 damage at the beginning of their turns until they take an action to put the fire out", that would not be eligible for critical damage but it wouldn't disqualify the attack that delivered the effect from being a critical hit. On top of that, no matter how the ruling was worded, Death Strike is a specific rule that would trump a general announcement of how saves and attack rolls interact.

But I thought the rule was actually pretty straight forward. Damage (dice) dealt directly by the attack was valid for critical hits, damage caused or mitigated by saves wasn't. We get caught up on things like poison having both automatic damage types and save damage types, but poison is just another element type in this system.



You are correct that the adding on of a str save for prone would not change the ability to crit with the damage. Of course the big reason for that is the save has nothing to do with damage at all (hence why when I keep talking about this I keep trying to say something along the idea of "saves for damage").

Your other example also do not apply because that is not how death strike works. Your example is make an attack, deal weapon damage, then make save for an additional completely separate damage ability. To your credit this is how poison happens to work but not how Death strike works.

Death strike is different. Death strike literally changes your weapon attack into having a save. It says if you hit with your attack on a surprised target it must make a save or take double damage. This ability directly modifies the weapon damage itself rather than adding an additional effect on top of the weapon damage. Heck this ability is just a more complicated version of a hypothetical spell where you "make a weapon attack. The attack deals double damage con save for half damage". If we wrote it down that way then there would no question to the sage's ruling because we would have seen this before.


Lastly as written death strike lacks the specificity to overall this hypothetical saving throw rule. The reason is that the ability does not actually specify that it changes the saving throw rule. Granted you could make the case that it does not need to in the RAW because this Sage ruling rule does not actually exist in the written rules so you could say it is not death strike's fault. Death strike works regardless of whether the attack is able to crit or not, the rule itself mentions nothing of critting, and so is not specific to that particular rule (though it does make it MUCH less useful and probably not worth it but technically that does not matter).

[CNagy]

SA doesn't reference a rule though. It doesn't matter if you can make it work through further rulings and houserules.

If you play with SA homebrew, Good for you! I won't debate how those made up rules should work.

Sage Advice gives official clarifications of D&D rules. There is no such thing as SA homebrew, there are just official rules and people who do not accept them.

No rule needed to be referenced; in stating that the saving throw, not the attack, determines whether or not the poison takes effect, it is effectively stated that the damage is not considered part of the attack's damage dice. That would be a clarification of Critical Hits, on page... 196? I think. PHB, I'm AFB.

[Mara]

So, bottom line on the poison...?Damage dice double on crit. Save for half poison damage (purple worm poison. Not all poisons have DCs or save for half)

As a DM, you may implement SA houserules, but you can't apply those universally without creating nonsense situations. So if you are houseruling then I suggest just saying poison damage can't crit, because that is simpler and doesn't break things. I wouldn't houserule though. It nerfs an already weak subclass.

[MeeposFire]

Sage Advice gives official clarifications of D&D rules. There is no such thing as SA homebrew, there are just official rules and people who do not accept them.

No rule needed to be referenced; in stating that the saving throw, not the attack, determines whether or not the poison takes effect, it is effectively stated that the damage is not considered part of the attack's damage dice. That would be a clarification of Critical Hits, on page... 196? I think. PHB, I'm AFB.

They can't reference a rule as it does not exist (written anyways). There are actually several spots in the rules where it talks about some attacks having special abilities instead of or in addition to normal weapon damage and poisons and the like (saving throw or otherwise) would certainly fit the description. The saving throw rules are noticeably silent on the issue as well because it would have been easy to add something like this in but they never did (the SA would imply the possibility that this was an oversight though that is not directly stated).

That is also why SA talks about intent rather than talking about an actual rule like he has done many times before as there is no direct rule to reference.

[CNagy]

You are correct that the adding on of a str save for prone would not change the ability to crit with the damage. Of course the big reason for that is the save has nothing to do with damage at all (hence why when I keep talking about this I keep trying to say something along the idea of "saves for damage").

Your other example also do not apply because that is not how death strike works. Your example is make an attack, deal weapon damage, then make save for an additional completely separate damage ability. To your credit this is how poison happens to work but not how Death strike works.

Death strike is different. Death strike literally changes your weapon attack into having a save. It says if you hit with your attack on a surprised target it must make a save or take double damage. This ability directly modifies the weapon damage itself rather than adding an additional effect on top of the weapon damage. Heck this ability is just a more complicated version of a hypothetical spell where you "make a weapon attack. The attack deals double damage con save for half damage". If we wrote it down that way then there would no question to the sage's ruling because we would have seen this before.


Lastly as written death strike lacks the specificity to overall this hypothetical saving throw rule. The reason is that the ability does not actually specify that it changes the saving throw rule. Granted you could make the case that it does not need to in the RAW because this Sage ruling rule does not actually exist in the written rules so you could say it is not death strike's fault. Death strike works regardless of whether the attack is able to crit or not, the rule itself mentions nothing of critting, and so is not specific to that particular rule (though it does make it MUCH less useful and probably not worth it but technically that does not matter).

You've got Death Strike figured wrong; the attack does not have a save. Death Strike has a save, and it is an ability that is triggered by the attack. The only change that Death Strike makes to the attack is that it alters the damage calculation if the creature fails the save. That's it.

As far as specificity is concerned, it doesn't have to mention the rule that it is changing. It only needs to state how the ability works, and if that contradicts some aspect of the general rules, the general rules are overruled. That is how specific vs. general has always worked--if the abilities spelled out what they were stepping on each time, we wouldn't need overarcing guide like "specific vs. general."

[Mara]

Are we really going to derail the thread with a debate about houserules and how they exactly work?

EDIT: Clearly the rule particulars would just change until they suited what the DM wanted.

[MeeposFire]

You've got Death Strike figured wrong; the attack does not have a save. Death Strike has a save, and it is an ability that is triggered by the attack. The only change that Death Strike makes to the attack is that it alters the damage calculation if the creature fails the save. That's it.

As far as specificity is concerned, it doesn't have to mention the rule that it is changing. It only needs to state how the ability works, and if that contradicts some aspect of the general rules, the general rules are overruled. That is how specific vs. general has always worked--if the abilities spelled out what they were stepping on each time, we wouldn't need overarcing guide like "specific vs. general."

That is not how specific vs general has worked. The specific part only applies to what it says it applies to. Death strike never mentions anything about changing the rules about criticals (granted once again by the RAW it does not have to as this only applies to the sage ruling) so the ability cannot change that rule. The ability works regardless if you allow the crit or not (it is just much less effective) so you cannot claim that the crit has to work with it. Abilities only do what they say they do as many around here are fond of saying.

As for your reading of death strike that isn't how it works. The ability adds a save to your weapon attack. The ability changes how much damage your weapon strike does. Your attack is now "make an attack roll and deal double damage save for normal".

Remember the ability does not say "death strike deals additional damage" it says that in a certain situation your attack now has a save and if it fails you deal double the attack's damage. The ability is essentially an enhanced crit (that is 99% likely to be intended to stack with a crit) as it doubles all modifiers and not just dice.

[bid]

As for your reading of death strike that isn't how it works. The ability adds a save to your weapon attack. The ability changes how much damage your weapon strike does. Your attack is now "make an attack roll and deal double damage save for normal".
And that save is 100% independent of the fact that your attack critted or not.

[Mara]

And that save is 100% independent of the fact that your attack critted or not.
That is how the rules work. But SA rules are really bad homebrew. By their logic, Death attack and assassinate don't stack. Since things that cause saving throws can't crit like normal damage dice on a weapon attack.

Like all low quality poorly thought out homebrew, you can't just blindly apply it to every situation and expect good results.

[djreynolds]

I'm glad for the great discussion.

But getting into surprise rounds, it seems IMO that spells such invisibility and misty step would be helpful and I may never see "death strike."

Archery is always a good option as well. But it seems my whole game plan will have to be setting up hasty ambushes to pull off surprise rounds and then needing to get away if they fail. Even if I miss with an arrow or bolt and have skulker, the enemy must know that an arrow was fired and now they will not be surprised. I can still sneak attack but not assassinate now?

[Mara]

I'm glad for the great discussion.

But getting into surprise rounds, it seems IMO that spells such invisibility and misty step would be helpful and I may never see "death strike."

Archery is always a good option as well. But it seems my whole game plan will have to be setting up hasty ambushes to pull off surprise rounds and then needing to get away if they fail. Even if I miss with an arrow or bolt and have skulker, the enemy must know that an arrow was fired and now they will not be surprised. I can still sneak attack but not assassinate now?

Assassin damage looks nice but it is really utility damage. You kill targets with it or you eliminate one foe before combat starts (the non-utility use). It's more useful out of combat where you can kill guards and local officials that are giving you or your party trouble.

If you get the surprise round, assassinate is like the poor man's extra thief turn. You do "two turns" worth of damage that increases to "four turns" at 17.

[djreynolds]

Well that's the rub. Assassinate seems like it'll be tougher to pull off with each level without resorting to magic or trinkets to help facilitate it.

I really want to play a leather clad rogue, but invisibility seems easier than sneaking in combat. And opening a dimension door seems very surprising way to get surprise.

[Mara]

Well that's the rub. Assassinate seems like it'll be tougher to pull off with each level without resorting to magic or trinkets to help facilitate it.

I really want to play a leather clad rogue, but invisibility seems easier than sneaking in combat. And opening a dimension door seems very surprising way to get surprise. Sneaking is really easy in combat as a rogue.

Move behind a pillar. Hide action. Beat stealth v perception. Get advantage on next attack. No it doesn't matter that they saw you go out of sight.

For a surprise round, you probably want to be scouting ahead with a bow. When you see something, take a shot at it at advantage (just win stealth v perception and not be in a spot that is completely visible) then run back to the party.

Assassins dungeon crawl better with parties that go out of their way to always get the drop on enemies. Without that you're just a rogue, which is till a good place to be

[hymer]

Sneaking is really easy in combat as a rogue.

Oy vey! Not another debate on Stealth! :smalleek:

[djreynolds]

Oy vey! Not another debate on Stealth! :smalleek:

No really on just whether it is better to just play a thief than an assassin. Surprise seems very few and far between, and lonely if its just you.

I'd like to try assassin but I'm leaning towards grabbing some wizard or warlock for help in the getting in/ getting out phase. Its tough enough to hunt prey in the dungeon or woods, but to also get a surprise on them will not be easy. Ranger is another possible place for a dip.

[Mara]

No really on just whether it is better to just play a thief than an assassin. Surprise seems very few and far between, and lonely if its just you.

I'd like to try assassin but I'm leaning towards grabbing some wizard or warlock for help in the getting in/ getting out phase. Its tough enough to hunt prey in the dungeon or woods, but to also get a surprise on them will not be easy. Ranger is another possible place for a dip.

The sharpshooter feat helps.

For warlock, the darkness would break surprise since they would then know that there is combat.

[djreynolds]

The sharpshooter feat helps.

For warlock, the darkness would break surprise since they would then know that there is combat.

Very true. Achieving surprise is tough. The rogue sometimes feels incomplete as a class. It's like I wish I could choose my own archetype features from the three.

And getting pass without a trace seems needed.

Great discussion

[Mara]

Very true. Achieving surprise is tough. The rogue sometimes feels incomplete as a class. It's like I wish I could choose my own archetype features from the three.

And getting pass without a trace seems needed.

Great discussion

All rogues with expertise stealth by level 11 roll a minimum of 23 on stealth checks. The DM is suggested to just use the foes passive perception, so unless you are facing something with expertise in perception or CR 21+ or the alert feat, or 24+ wis, you are basically undetectable.

[djreynolds]

The sad thing is, I'm not sure if we will ever get to that level to try it out. I live vicariously through you guys.

Case in point, our DM's just switched out and we are re-rolling again on another campaign we're on.

[hymer]

The sad thing is, I'm not sure if we will ever get to that level to try it out. I live vicariously through you guys.

Case in point, our DM's just switched out and we are re-rolling again on another campaign we're on.

Sorry to hear that. Still, count your blessings. Some people rarely get to play at all. :smallfrown: