DMs: Would you let a player spend a feat to get "Assassinate" from rogue?

[Corinath]

Title.

DM here. Thinking aloud.

Presuming the class otherwise felt like a rogue but wasn't a rogue (high dex, sneaky, etc), so fantasy wouldn't be disrupted.

You can effectively get Battle Master dice via a feat. Would this be a justification for getting Assassination?

Cheers!

Edit: I get it everyone, my premises was way off. BM as a feat is watered down and this is not an option. Yes I'm fully aware what multi-classing is that's not what I'm trying to figure out. If you're going to comment please read the whole thread. And many thanks to those who helped me wander through this apparent blunder without judgement or derision.

[Malifice]

Nope. Take 3 levels in rogue.

Might allow the advantage vs a creature that hasn't acted yet bit as a feat though.

[Fable Wright]

Short answer: No.
Medium answer: Absolutely not.
Longer answer: Noooooooooooooooooo.

Explanation:

Not only is Assassinate the feature that defines the entire Assassin archetype, it's also strong enough that many optimized fighter builds take three levels of Rogue for the sole purpose of grabbing that feature and unloading an Action Surge'd two full round attacks at maxxed damage dice, but your example is deeply flawed.

You get a smaller die, fewer dice, and fewer maneuvers taking the feat over getting battlemaster levels. Maybe you can spend a feat to get a very stripped down and weak version of the feature. But that very much depends on what the final version looks like.

[Corinath]

Short answer: No.
Medium answer: Absolutely not.
Longer answer: Noooooooooooooooooo.

Explanation:

Not only is Assassinate the feature that defines the entire Assassin archetype, it's also strong enough that many optimized fighter builds take three levels of Rogue for the sole purpose of grabbing that feature and unloading an Action Surge'd two full round attacks at maxxed damage dice, but your example is deeply flawed.

You get a smaller die, fewer dice, and fewer maneuvers taking the feat over getting battlemaster levels. Maybe you can spend a feat to get a very stripped down and weak version of the feature. But that very much depends on what the final version looks like.

This is a great point. I am not that familiar with Battle Master and forgot they generally get more.

Also I didn't know people did that. LoL.

Edit: I should also clarify, in terms of definition, we have zero rogues in the party. This is the only member I'm aware of that would be. So no dilution. Not that it matters in terms of power imbalance.

[Malifice]

Edit: I should also clarify, in terms of definition, we have zero rogues in the party. This is the only member I'm aware of that would be. So no dilution. Not that it matters in terms of power imbalance.

Even more reason to simply take 3 levels in rogue.

[Armored Walrus]

Sure assassinate defines the assassin archetype, just like superiority dice define the battlemaster archetype. OP's example was on point. Just nerf it slightly for a feat, just like Battle Maneuvers feat is a nerfed version of battlemaster 3.

Considering how rarely Assassinate actually gets used IME, you wouldn't be breaking the game just by giving the full feature, but for "balance" sake, maybe give the advantage if target hasn't acted yet, and expanded crit range of 18-20 if you hit.

[Iados]

Even more reason to simply take 3 levels in rogue.

^This.

Feats can allow access to minor abilities, such as a lesser version of Battle Master or a one-use 1st-level spell and two cantrips via Magic Initiate. But Feats should not allow players to grab class-exclusive powers that normally require dipping several levels. Otherwise, everyone is going to use Feats to acquire Assassinate, Action Surge, Metamagic, Inspiration Dice, etc., while continuing at a normal level progression.

[Corinath]

Even more reason to simply take 3 levels in rogue.

I'm actually working on a home-brew druid rogue. Circle of the Shadow, or something to that effect. That's why I mentioned it still fits class fantasy. My player loves druids and likes how her assassin rogue played last time, so I was creating a class that blended the two. Spell progression becomes akin to Arcane Trickster (haven't settled the spells known discrepancy), and the player gets Rogue tier sneak attack in return provided:

A) the attack would normally get sneak attack while in humanoid form
Or
B) the attack would normally get sneak attack while in shape shifted form *IF* the form uses Dex as it's primary attack OR has Pack Tactics.

(Yes, I know Sage Advice went against this, and am totally open to criticisms).

So she'd be getting SA levels on par with a rogue, have the Moon Druid Chassis, and take severely limited spell casting as a trade off. The "Assassinate" aspect isn't something I had yet reconciled, since that feels like heaping on way too much without a trade-off, hence me going into feat territory.

But y'all are right. Feats are not that strong, and that may just be how it is.

EDIT:


^This.

Feats can allow access to minor abilities, such as a lesser version of Battle Master or a one-use 1st-level spell and two cantrips via Magic Initiate. But Feats should not allow players to grab class-exclusive powers that normally require dipping several levels. Otherwise, everyone is going to use Feats to acquire Assassinate, Action Surge, Metamagic, Inspiration Dice, etc., while continuing at a normal level progression.

Another excellent point extrapolated further. Thank you. :)


Sure assassinate defines the assassin archetype, just like superiority dice define the battlemaster archetype. OP's example was on point. Just nerf it slightly for a feat, just like Battle Maneuvers feat is a nerfed version of battlemaster 3.

Considering how rarely Assassinate actually gets used IME, you wouldn't be breaking the game just by giving the full feature, but for "balance" sake, maybe give the advantage if target hasn't acted yet, and expanded crit range of 18-20 if you hit.

Expanding the critical range is a really interesting thought for compromise. How does everyone else feel about this? What would the appropriate range be? Is there a mathy way to do this?

[Armored Walrus]

Taking three levels of Rogue would also get them sneak attack and cunning action. The feat only gives Assassinate (or a watered-down version of it).

"Everyone will take features from other classes." Who's everyone? OP is talking about one player at his table. No one else has to do this. He's asking if it would unbalance his table. Let's not let "slippery slope" thinking cloud our judgement here. OP is more than able to homebrew a feat that gives this feature. He's not asking if it's RAW. It's obviously not. He's asking how it would impact his game.

People seriously need to relax...

Edit: "Mathy" way to do it? I'm not sure if anyone has parsed out the formula WotC uses to balance the classes (someone here has a post where they attempted to do that with the races, though). I'm sure there's a point value for the Assassinate feature, but i couldn't point you to anyone who knows what that is. Is Assassinate, as a stand-alone feature, more powerful than a +1 magic weapon? Is it more powerful than GWM or Sharpshooter? Because that's essentially what your player is giving up in order to take that feat.

[Corinath]

Taking three levels of Rogue would also get them sneak attack and cunning action. The feat only gives Assassinate (or a watered-down version of it).

"Everyone will take features from other classes." Who's everyone? OP is talking about one player at his table. No one else has to do this. He's asking if it would unbalance his table. Let's not let "slippery slope" thinking cloud our judgement here. OP is more than able to homebrew a feat that gives this feature. He's not asking if it's RAW. It's obviously not. He's asking how it would impact his game.

People seriously need to relax...

LoL, FWIW my table is pretty ridiculous. Our party token on Roll20 was a Drunken Nicholas Cage photo. I have an incoming Blood Hunter, this class I mentioned I might create, and two players who are dating who want to play a two headed Ogre and constantly roll persuasion checks against one another to decide who gets to take control of the body (as a side note I have advised against this and will likely create a backdoor when when/if one of them realizes they aren't having fun.)

So, yeah. They're all fantastic players, however, and I adore the group I have. I just... don't want any one person to feel imbalanced over the other, as you mentioned. Hence my concern. :)

Edit: Yeah I don't know. I know some people here are super math oriented. Like, there was that document that breaks down relative damage per round per class. Also, the document that outlines how to approximately home-brew a class. It's just like, there are so many brilliant people here that I wouldn't be surprised if someone chimed in being like "5% to crit is approximately equal to one quarter the power of GWF". LoL.

[Armored Walrus]

Edit: Yeah I don't know. I know some people here are super math oriented. Like, there was that document that breaks down relative damage per round per class. Also, the document that outlines how to approximately home-brew a class. It's just like, there are so many brilliant people here that I wouldn't be surprised if someone chimed in being like "5% to crit is approximately equal to one quarter the power of GWF". LoL.

Someone might. In the meantime, the DMG does give you some guidelines on page 287 - 288, Modifying a Class, if you want a RAW answer to your question. But my best advice is, try it, but by all that's holy don't let the playgrounders know you're trying it...

[Iados]

LoL, FWIW my table is pretty ridiculous. Our party token on Roll20 was a Drunken Nicholas Cage photo. I have an incoming Blood Hunter, this class I mentioned I might create, and two players who are dating who want to play a two headed Ogre and constantly roll persuasion checks against one another to decide who gets to take control of the body (as a side note I have advised against this and will likely create a backdoor when when/if one of them realizes they aren't having fun.)

Sounds like a fun group! If two players are going to jointly play a two-headed ogre, this sounds like a group of friends that won't get too upset if one player is imbalanced since they're all just having fun for the lulz. If I'm right about the group dynamic, you can probably move forward with the Feat for Assassinate without much drama.

Alternatively, if I'm wrong about the group dynamic, there's indeed a chance that the other players may argue that they should also be able to purchase class abilities for a feat. Would it be too much of a burden to just ask the player to dip three levels in Rogue to get Assassinate? That sounds simpler than trying to find a way to quantify an abstract value for Assassinate and then shoehorn a modified version of it into a Feat.

[Corinath]

Sounds like a fun group! If two players are going to jointly play a two-headed ogre, this sounds like a group of friends that won't get too upset if one player is imbalanced since they're all just having fun for the lulz. If I'm right about the group dynamic, you can probably move forward with the Feat for Assassinate without much drama.

Alternatively, if I'm wrong about the group dynamic, there's indeed a chance that the other players may argue that they should also be able to purchase class abilities for a feat. Would it be too much of a burden to just ask the player to dip three levels in Rogue to get Assassinate? That sounds simpler than trying to find a way to quantify an abstract value for Assassinate and then shoehorn a modified version of it into a Feat.

It becomes tricky logistically to Home-brew a Druid Rogue class then to have to dip into Rogue to get a part of it's subclass, but that might be the way it is to get Assassinate. :-/

She'd probably just decline to do the dip in the end and go full home-brew class. I think she prefers the access to higher level wild shapes over the assassinate.

That being said, none of them are really experienced enough to know about power imbalance and would just think I'd done due diligence in making sure it was balanced. The fact that it isn't per most standards (excellent points brought up here) means I'd likely not allow it, which is why they generally trust me. LoL.

[Daithi]

I'm not a DM, but I wouldn't even ask my DM this question because I know he'd laugh in my face.

[Corinath]

I'm not a DM, but I wouldn't even ask my DM this question because I know he'd laugh in my face.

Cool story man.

Well I didn't know how to reconcile this and my session zero is fast approaching (twenty minutes out), so I needed help.

Thanks for the input.

[MxKit]

Probably too late to help you out, but yeah, I'd allow it. If I was worried about it being too overpowered for a feat, I might strip it down and make it a half feat instead, or make it into two feats.

Shock Trooper. Any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit.

Striker. On your first attack in a combat, you have advantage against any enemy that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet.

Stupid names, but yeah. Maybe something like that?

[Corinath]

Probably too late to help you out, but yeah, I'd allow it. If I was worried about it being too overpowered for a feat, I might strip it down and make it a half feat instead, or make it into two feats.

Shock Trooper. Any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit.

Striker. On your first attack in a combat, you have advantage against any enemy that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet.

Stupid names, but yeah. Maybe something like that?

Oh this is interesting. So, using the above, It'd be like making Striker a pre-requisite for Shock Trooper so you'd have to build into it. Kind of like building into Heavy Armor from Medium Armor. Adding Dex or some other such pre-req.

Fascinating approach. :)

[MxKit]

Oh this is interesting. So, using the above, It'd be like making Striker a pre-requisite for Shock Trooper so you'd have to build into it. Kind of like building into Heavy Armor from Medium Armor. Adding Dex or some other such pre-req.

Fascinating approach. :)

I don't know, for some builds I could imagine taking Shock Trooper but not Striker! Depending on how reliably I can get advantage in other ways, such as a sneaky Warlock (or even Arcane Trickster!) with a familiar, and if you can get advantage reliably it'd probably be more useful to get Sharpshooter or Elven Accuracy. :) But if you really wanted to get the equivalent of Assassinate, you'd have to take both in some order or other using some of your ASIs...

[Ovarwa]

And,

Let's spend a Feat to get...

Warlock Arcanum for a level 9 spell....

Wizard Signature Spells...

Lore Bard Secrets (especially for Druids and Clerics who want Wish)...

Anyway,

Ken

----
(Just to be clear, I'm leaning a bit toward No.)

[Asmotherion]

Only if we were playing a non-serious hack-and-slash one shot over pizza and beer, were half of the point of playing would be to crack jokes and not really play seriously. This kind of play can be fun once in a wile, I won't argue otherwise.

But in a serious game, never in my right mind. Game balance requires someone to dip 3 levels of dedication for a feature; you don't get shortcuts. Optimisation needs some dedication. If you're not willing to loose some in order to win some, then you don't get any. Simple as that by my book.

The most rule-bending I'd be willing to get would be to let a Rogue re-train their Archetype during downtime, if they felt they wanted to become an Assasin instead of their current Archetype for example.

[Vogie]

It depends on what part of it you wanted to give them. "You have Advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn’t taken a turn in the combat yet" would probably be worth a feat. It'd be like a sneaky version of Alert

[Malifice]

Cool story man.

Well I didn't know how to reconcile this and my session zero is fast approaching (twenty minutes out), so I needed help.

Thanks for the input.

'Multi class rogue'

Seems the obvious solution.

[Jerrykhor]

I would love to have this feat. I'm currently playing a UA Mystic whose background is an assassin, but DM won't allow multi-classing. Maybe I can convince him to give me this feat haha.

[Fayd]

No. But I would and have given players magic items that grant class features and racial features for classes, subclasses, and races that aren’t in play, because the point is to have fun!

I’d be most likely to if there was no rogue at all. Then if another player was a rogue but was some other archetype and was ok with it, then sure. I’d probably NOT give it to the rogue of a different archetype I think the power multiplier might be a bit too much but...yeah I’m fine with it. Just, magic items, not feats.

[Armored Walrus]

I'm curious, why reserve it to a magic item, and not allow it to be something the character invested time and effort into learning for themselves? Is it so it can potentially be taken away, or so it can be limited by attunement requirements, or some other reason?

[KorvinStarmast]

You can effectively get Battle Master dice via a feat. Would this be a justification for getting Assassination? No.
PS that feat (Martial Adept) is a pale shadow of the BM's full suite of abilities.

[Vogie]

I could see this actually be given in a Leverage-style game, where all of the characters are "Rogues" without none of them actually being the actual Rogue class. I'd give one person the Assassinate, and the rest of the players would each get a little sneak attack and a 3rd level rogue bonus. The leader would get the mastermind, the Thief would get Thief (of course), the Muscle would get Swashbuckler, and the Gifter would get either Arcane Trickster or Inquisitive

[Oramac]

I'll disagree with the masses and say yes, with one caveat: it ABSOLUTELY MUST fit the story for the character in question. As in, if this character doesn't take this "feat" it would ruin the story for that character.

Other than that, probably not.

[Coffee_Dragon]

As in, if this character doesn't take this "feat" it would ruin the story for that character.

Yes, for those times when, if a character doesn't get auto-crits at the start of combat, everybody's jaws drop and they cry, "How can this character not get auto-crits at the start of combat, that makes no sense given their story, it's ruined now omfg asdf" :)

Other than that, nope nope nopety nopanope etc.

[MeeposFire]

Honestly assassinate is one of the most overblown abilities in 5e. Some people treat it like it is the most amazing thing ever. It is not unless your DM just gives you surprise all the time and you always get to attack before your target gets to his turn. The vast majority of the games it sounds great but is not actually that great.

Despite this unless the game you are in is going to eliminate the assassin archetype from the rogue (or drastically change it) then you really should not hand out this ability as a feat. Really it is the most defining thing the type gets and unlike the battlemaster you cannot really weaken it so that it does nto feel like you are stepping on its toes without making it so weak it is laughable (honestly that battlemaster feat is weak enough to be laughable).

[Vaz]

I allow it with a magic weapon. That said, it also grants further bonuses to a character with assassinate already.

[Tanarii]

Honestly assassinate is one of the most overblown abilities in 5e. Some people treat it like it is the most amazing thing ever. It is not unless your DM just gives you surprise all the time and you always get to attack before your target gets to his turn. The vast majority of the games it sounds great but is not actually that great.
Agreed.

But it's one of those things that gets more powerful with a small party, especially one designed to ambush. Or one where the scouts (including the assassin) ambush then run back to where the party is, drawing the enemies into a secondary "ambush". (Not necessarily even hidden PCs, just tactically superior positioning on the party's terms.)

It's also superior if the DM doesn't understand how to run Stealth, and let's the Rogue get easily surprise while with the rest of the not-stealthy party.

Regardless, it's definitely still too powerful as written. I think you could water it down to be powerful enough to be worth a feat. But like Martial Adept or Weapon Master or more of the armor feats, it'd work best in a game where there are Feats but multiclassing isn't a possibility.

In fact, on a non-rogue (ie no sneak attack dice) the "any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit" is probably balanced. Remembering that static bonuses don't get doubled, only damage dice.

[HolyDraconus]

Yes. I even would allow it at full power. I have never seen assassinate work in AL, and in homebrew, if one person isn't surprised no one is. So unless the player is specifically stabbing everyone at random I doubt the feat would get any mileage.

[Crgaston]

Just spitballing, and it’s probably too late, but a custom class with Arcane trickster spell progression using Druid spells and Assassin features instead of AT ones, Sneak Attack dice added every 4th level, Cunning Action but no Expertise, and Wild Shape might be fun and not wildly imbalanced.