So after looking over the latest One D&D playtest materials and I am rather shocked to see Assassin and Gloomstalker getting a solid nerfhammer, already beeing niche subclasses that had one purpose - make for great flash-damage.
Assassin subclass (rogue) 5E a) Auto-crit against surprised enemies One D&D a) Advantage to initiative b) +rogue level to damage with sneak attack during first round of combat. c) When using poison option of cunning strike, enemies who fail save take +2d6 damage.
This is problematic on multiple levels. First and foremost, the class was already a niche class with a single purpose - deal high and reliable surprise damage. Now its just a slight damage increase, and it doesn't work at all with multiclassing. For instance a lv 10 assassin who is trying to assassinate someone deals 1d6 (short sword)+5d6 (sneak attack)+10 (assassin class)+10 (dex, magic weapon etc). That is 41 damage, 10 more than any other rogue before taking their abilities into account. After that one hit, the assassin has nothing more to offer really. In 5E you would instead deal +21 damage from autocrit, it would work well with martial multiclasses such as fighter, ranger etc. and assassin was indeed the best at their job - dealing massive flash damage.
To compensate the Assassin gets lackluster poison ability and advantage to initiative (welcome!)
As written, if I were to play an assassin from an optimalization standpoint I would likely play a thief (which really got the steroids in the playtest). At level 10, deal 31 damage then use a bonus action to activate a staff of something (lets say lightning bolt) for an additional 14 damage (halved for possible save), and still not burning the whole classes reportoir. This gets even worse at high level, when the Assassin can force a save or deal approx +21 damage (12d6, averaged and divided by 2 for the potential save) while the Thief gets an extra turn (inc +full sneak attack)! This is again a Thief doing exactly what the archtypical Assassin is supposed to excel at, and the Thief absolutely doesnt dabble in.
My suggestion: a) Keep the core and cool part of the assassin - the auto-crits. Make them a bit more reliable by removing the surprised clause, making the assassin capable to auto-critting vs. targets who have not yet acted, along with the advantage.
b) Retain the advantage to initiative. (a fair boost to a very particular subclass)
c) Remove the lackluster +2d6 damage with poison and instead say that the assassin can apply a carried poison as part of usin the Poison option from Cunning Strike. That would actually be useful, cool and fit the archetype.
d) Make the level 17 ability deal bonus +5d6 sneak attack damage instead of save or double. Assassin = reliable. Save or none is the opposite of reliable. if that feels to booring for the Flavour-department, give them the extra attack feature or something that leans into the reliable martial damage expert.
Gloom Stalker subclass (ranger) 5E a) +1 attack the first round of combat, and it deals +1d8 damage b) Once per round, when you miss with an attack you can make an extra attack c) Reaction to impose disadvantage on an attack roll against you that didnt have advantage. One D&D a) A number of times equal to your wisdom modifier, and limited to once/turn you can deal +1d8 damage and frighten an enemy for 1 round. d) When using ability a) you either get an extra attack against a new target, or the fear effect hits everyone on 10 feet radius. e) Reaction to impose disadvantage and potential teleport
As with the Assassin the Gloom Staker also lost their essential +1 attack during the first round for a measly fear ability likely usable 1/long rest. I can say already that with this change Gloom Stalker will go from the most beloved Ranger subclass to one hardly used.
My suggestion: Just keep the Gloomstalker as it is - its the one cool part of the ranger as it is.
Overall I am getting 4ed vibes which is not a good thing. Anything that can be theorycrafted, benefits from multiclassing or can stack is removed (extra attack, critical hits) and instead flat and hard-limited damage increases (often +XdXdamage 1/round, with no logic behind the 1/round limit) are handed out. What 5e managed to do exceptionally well was to retain a level of balance while avoiding just this. It allowed for weird multiclass interactions, classes doing entirely different things, uncapped abilities and so on and thus felt really cool.
I should also note that its interesting that these flash-oriented elements are getting hit so hard, while it seems spellcasters with Animate Object and other massive damage spells pass with mostly power-increases.
I never took a 5e assassin beyond level 4. Assassinate was the only good thing about it in my opinion. I like the new assassin better and like that it’s not requiring surprise, but the the additional damage needs to be better. Maybe instead of flat damage make it an additional sneak attack dice. 1 at 3rd, 2 at 7th, 3 at 11th, 4 at 15th and 5 at 19th. That would give you a nice boost to damage in that first round.
Gloomstalker was basically the best ranger. Which is a bad thing since it was much better than most Rangers until Tasha’s. It’s probably still the best Ranger after Tasha’s. The biggest problem with the new version is the fear effect doesn’t work because you are invisible in darkness. Maybe a save against blindness instead of frightened would work. Losing the extra attack in the 1st round is a fair exchange for being given Wis mod d8s to and to attacks. When you factor in that you could miss that extra attack (I have) the new version is actually better.
I never took a 5e assassin beyond level 4. Assassinate was the only good thing about it in my opinion.
I think that's the real problem that these two classes were facing... they were so front-loaded with such amazing features that they were getting overly used in multiclassing. It was too easy to put 3 levels in either then just go fighter... Hell, any time I see someone try to build the "ultimate martial damage dealer", it usually starts with Assassin and Gloomstalker.
Personally? I don't like assassin. It's not always easy to get surprise in the first round of combat, especially if you're traveling with your big armored paladin buddy and some barefoot druid stumbling through an armory with a chipmunk on their shoulder or whatever. So it's mostly useful for sneaking off on your own, which is cool that it's an option, but it rarely goes well for anyone involved. I always think of the first campaign of Critical Role, where one of the players was an Assassin Rogue and he really only used his assassinate feature like... twice? In the whole campaign? Maybe it was 3 or 4, but either way it's really hard to actually utilize. Then all the other Assassin class features suck... Infiltration Expertise is something you could manage just as well by having a decent Deception score, Impostor is just a harder-to-use version of the Actor feat, and Death Strike is really only useful in the same situations that Asassinate already is. I think Assassin needed a complete overhaul, and I'm glad they got it. That said... the auto-crit is so iconic to the subclass.
I'd say... make it a higher level feature, and just give the player a number of uses per day. You hit 13th level, now 3 times a day you can auto-crit. Makes it more reliable as something you can actually use without your DM deliberately building scenarios that exist just so you have an excuse to use your cool assassin feature, but it's a high enough level feature that not everybody is going to include a 3 level Rogue dip just to snag it.
Same suggestion for Gloomstalker... just put that additional attack as a higher level feature. It's still a solid subclass otherwise.
I never took a 5e assassin beyond level 4. Assassinate was the only good thing about it in my opinion.
I think that's the real problem that these two classes were facing... they were so front-loaded with such amazing features that they were getting overly used in multiclassing. It was too easy to put 3 levels in either then just go fighter...
But that's a problem of there being nothing later on, and not a rationale to gut the entire class. In fact, I would be more likely to multiclass just for lack of any benefit staying in a class than not. Especially when Ranger in particular is considered one of the weakest in the entire game (and rogue being DM dependent for sneak attack/advantage isn't far behind, which is one of the things OneDND seems to be inching towards fixing)
I've not been happy with cunning strikes. I hate it. It's just stupid. There's a million other options they could have to give the classes later on, but they don't.
I see assassins getting poison damage outright, and having increased stealth and hide abilities. Assassins lurk in shadows after all.
Swashbucker needs a bit of an AC boost since its supposed to be in melee range, or it should have charm/frighten (intimidate) without expending resources. (i'll let them keep the trip option for a die).
Thief... isn't bad.... It's not exciting, but it's not bad. Arcane trickster is fine. It's a spellcasting rogue, why would it even NOT be ok as a partial caster?
In fact, they do those nice things for the casters, ignoring the fact that they've historically had few "extras" as they have an ever growing spell list and their spells scale, and if anything they get new ways to cast spells. and you... know... they're casters.
The bard just kills me with everything it gets. As well as the partial caster paladin...
Rangers and terrain just should be done away with. Not that they don't get the bonuses, just the picking terrain BS needs to be gone. You can switch them every short rest, so why even bother? And then it frees up a slot for anther actual legit boost to the class rather than saying "oh yeah, no you can make another absolutely pointless choice that you can change again after a long rest".
The barrage is pretty damned sweet, but it comes so late. They could scale it back and give it at a earlier yet more midrange level, like 7 or 9.
I can't say much for gloomstalker, but just in general, they don't seem to get the classes, much less the subclasses... unless you're a caster.
I never took a 5e assassin beyond level 4. Assassinate was the only good thing about it in my opinion.
I think that's the real problem that these two classes were facing... they were so front-loaded with such amazing features that they were getting overly used in multiclassing. It was too easy to put 3 levels in either then just go fighter...
But that's a problem of there being nothing later on, and not a rationale to gut the entire class. In fact, I would be more likely to multiclass just for lack of any benefit staying in a class than not. Especially when Ranger in particular is considered one of the weakest in the entire game (and rogue being DM dependent for sneak attack/advantage isn't far behind, which is one of the things OneDND seems to be inching towards fixing)
I've not been happy with cunning strikes. I hate it. It's just stupid. There's a million other options they could have to give the classes later on, but they don't.
I see assassins getting poison damage outright, and having increased stealth and hide abilities. Assassins lurk in shadows after all.
Swashbucker needs a bit of an AC boost since its supposed to be in melee range, or it should have charm/frighten (intimidate) without expending resources. (i'll let them keep the trip option for a die).
Thief... isn't bad.... It's not exciting, but it's not bad. Arcane trickster is fine. It's a spellcasting rogue, why would it even NOT be ok as a partial caster?
In fact, they do those nice things for the casters, ignoring the fact that they've historically had few "extras" as they have an ever growing spell list and their spells scale, and if anything they get new ways to cast spells. and you... know... they're casters.
The bard just kills me with everything it gets. As well as the partial caster paladin...
Rangers and terrain just should be done away with. Not that they don't get the bonuses, just the picking terrain BS needs to be gone. You can switch them every short rest, so why even bother? And then it frees up a slot for anther actual legit boost to the class rather than saying "oh yeah, no you can make another absolutely pointless choice that you can change again after a long rest".
The barrage is pretty damned sweet, but it comes so late. They could scale it back and give it at a earlier yet more midrange level, like 7 or 9.
I can't say much for gloomstalker, but just in general, they don't seem to get the classes, much less the subclasses... unless you're a caster.
Assassinate needs more damage but the new Assassin is overall better. Reliable talent, high dex and expertise means stealth checks aren’t an issue at higher levels. EnvenomWeapon basically makes using the Cunning strike free while gaining an additional 1d6 with the weakness being that it’s poison damage. Every rogue is giving up 1d6 to do this. So long as a creature doesn’t have immunity to poison damage Assassins deal 1d6 more damage per sneak attack.
Swashbucklers are not front line melee types. They are hit and run types. That’s why fancy footwork give you a free disengage. They are meant to be dual wielders who attack, attack with their bonus action and still run away.
Thief is in a wild space right now depending on what magic items they could get their hands on.
Bards are searching for a place to land. Easiest fix is to give them access to all spell lists at level one, but limit them to abjuration, enchantment, divination, and illusion. Magical secrets later allows them to pick from all schools
The terrain thing for Ranger is the only flavor left for the class. They need to remove the limit on survival checks though. It shouldn’t only be to track.
Conjure Barrage is 9th and Conjure Volley is 17th, both should be optional because many melee Rangers don’t like the flavor. At 17th it should be a choice between Conjure Volley, and Steel Wind Strike. I’m not sure what the optional 9th level spell should be. There is nothing iconic at that level for Rangers, so they may need to make a new spell that fits.
Gloomstalker would be fine if they didn’t forget that the fear effect doesn’t work while you’re invisible.
I never took a 5e assassin beyond level 4. Assassinate was the only good thing about it in my opinion.
Assassinate needs more damage but the new Assassin is overall better. Reliable talent, high dex and expertise means stealth checks aren’t an issue at higher levels. EnvenomWeapon basically makes using the Cunning strike free while gaining an additional 1d6 with the weakness being that it’s poison damage. Every rogue is giving up 1d6 to do this. So long as a creature doesn’t have immunity to poison damage Assassins deal 1d6 more damage per sneak attack.
Swashbucklers are not front line melee types. They are hit and run types. That’s why fancy footwork give you a free disengage. They are meant to be dual wielders who attack, attack with their bonus action and still run away.
Thief is in a wild space right now depending on what magic items they could get their hands on.
Bards are searching for a place to land. Easiest fix is to give them access to all spell lists at level one, but limit them to abjuration, enchantment, divination, and illusion. Magical secrets later allows them to pick from all schools
The terrain thing for Ranger is the only flavor left for the class. They need to remove the limit on survival checks though. It shouldn’t only be to track.
Conjure Barrage is 9th and Conjure Volley is 17th, both should be optional because many melee Rangers don’t like the flavor. At 17th it should be a choice between Conjure Volley, and Steel Wind Strike. I’m not sure what the optional 9th level spell should be. There is nothing iconic at that level for Rangers, so they may need to make a new spell that fits.
Gloomstalker would be fine if they didn’t forget that the fear effect doesn’t work while you’re invisible.
Expertise, ect. aren't assassin sublass feature, they're just rogue features.
Swashbucker could be just as easilyt handled with a LOT more movement. I prefer higher AC, but when it takes 10-20 feet of movement to get to the target, and then you run away, you just can't run away far enough to avoid the reprisal.... Which being a glass cannon is a problem. Which is why it forces ranged rogues. Which suffer from a wishywashy sneak attack mechanic, which I admit they are fixing.
Thief is in a weird spot, and I guess now that I think about it, it's kind of a core problem to 5e. (Hear me out).
Thief, like the other rogue classes (inquisitor, mastermind, etc) and the ranger and the bard are all suffering from the need to find a balance between what the class is defined by flavor wise and what the class is defined by combat mechanics wise.
And both are subject to constrained mechanics which are trying to keep everything simple. You add too many exceptions/instances, you get complexity and crunch, but the flip side is, you lose a simple to learn system. Conversely, you try and simplify the system too much, and you get 5e's homogeny problem.
Unlike Assassin, Swashbuckler, and Arcane Trickster, the other rogues aren't exactly archetypes based on a unique fighting style or flavor. What's a mastermind going to do? Think me to death? On the other hand, inquisitor is actually where you CAN make use of something more like a "cop" flavor, and give them something like medium armor (or if an AC18 which my cleric starts out with is just "WAAAAAAYYYYY TOO OVERPOWERED!!!!", then you can take your pick of armors they can wear) and a few martial weapon types as well as allowing them the weapon mastery mechanic while denying other rogues that ability.
But I digress.
The ranger suffers from lack of flavor because the flavor it DID have is no longer a part of play. It's simply not a thing the mechanics usually care for. Nobody cares about ration and survival, an half the time people forget terrain rules unless they're long time players/DM's. It's a casualty of rue simplification.
The bard suffers from not finding its place is false. The bard doesn't have a place. Jack of all trades, master of none. It's literally a skill monkey. It shouldn't be excellent at anything, but better than the everyone else is at the stuff they aren't good at.... Meaning that they shouldn't be as good as a fighter or a monk at fighting, but better at fighting than the wizard or the sorcerer. They shouldn't be casting fireballs, but they should be able to cast minor spells because the rogue and fighter aren't really casters. They should have charisma and intelligence as their stat proficiencies, because they are supposed to be charismatic and they're students of the arts and literature (theoretically).
The biggest problem with the bard is that they keep pushing those god damned f***ing INSTRUMENTS!!! WHY IN GOD'S NAME DO I NEED THREE DAMNED INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCIES WHEN MY CHARACTER BARELY GETS THE CHANCE TO USE ONE!?!?!?!?!
Bard should get 2 more languages and either two tool proficiencies OR a musical instrument and a set of tools related to a craft (potter's tools, cartographer, jewelers, etc. but also an artist's tool set, including brush, paints, etc. and maybe a few new tool sets). It would give more use to the proficiencies they get, be much more on flavor of a "jack of all trades" when you pick up the skills others usually gloss over, and just let the damned class breathe a little.
EDIT: maybe the pugilist idea floating around for a subclass might better fit the rogue, either as a new subclass, or under something like the criminal mastermind (think Kingpin from Marvel Comics), or the thief (the thief being the sort of character that is most likely to be a back alley thug perhaps). Unless somehow another beat'em up type is again, "too overpowered" for the rogue with a d4 damage and some grapple/knock out mechanics as level advancement.
The ranger suffers from lack of flavor because the flavor it DID have is no longer a part of play. It's simply not a thing the mechanics usually care for. Nobody cares about ration and survival, an half the time people forget terrain rules unless they're long time players/DM's. It's a casualty of rue simplification.
I think that's true, but I actually think One D&D would be a good way for them to make travel and exploration easier to use and more fun to implement. I think the reason a lot of players skip it is because it's mostly just paperwork... you're going from point A to point B... all the stuff the DM prepared is at point B. There's no characters to interact with in the travel between, and if the players do well on some rolls there aren't even any combats. The DM is, if anything, probably just going to roll on an encounter table to determine what happens in the meantime.
I don't necessarily know what the solution should be. But I think the main issue is that there's far less to interact with in exploration/travel than in combat or diplomacy. If you build a character who specializes in diplomacy you end up with in-depth conversations with NPCs, perhaps some counter-rolls for bluffs or arguments. Combat, of course, is the most complex part of the game and where most character abilities are utilized. However, if you have a character built for exploration... it mostly just gives you the ability to skip the exploration part of the game entirely. Roll a high enough Survival check and boom, you just fast-traveled to where ever you were trying to go.
I don't necessarily know what the solution should be. But I think the main issue is that there's far less to interact with in exploration/travel than in combat or diplomacy. If you build a character who specializes in diplomacy you end up with in-depth conversations with NPCs, perhaps some counter-rolls for bluffs or arguments. Combat, of course, is the most complex part of the game and where most character abilities are utilized. However, if you have a character built for exploration... it mostly just gives you the ability to skip the exploration part of the game entirely. Roll a high enough Survival check and boom, you just fast-traveled to where ever you were trying to go.
This is also why DMs just don't bother preparing stuff for the travel scenes. Why bother spending an hour of your time preparing an encounter than will just get skipped if someone rolls a high enough check? So it becomes a cyclical effect, players can just skip it so DMs don't bother prepping so DMs make it easier for players to skip it b/c they haven't prepped it. IMO any activity, encounter or part of the game that a DM will have to put effort into preparing should not be easily skippable by the players.
But that's a problem of there being nothing later on, and not a rationale to gut the entire class.
If there was nothing past the front-loaded uber-features, there was nothing to gut
If you're suggesting the later features should have been improved to match how great the early ones were... hard pass
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The ranger suffers from lack of flavor because the flavor it DID have is no longer a part of play. It's simply not a thing the mechanics usually care for. Nobody cares about ration and survival, an half the time people forget terrain rules unless they're long time players/DM's. It's a casualty of rue simplification.
I think that's true, but I actually think One D&D would be a good way for them to make travel and exploration easier to use and more fun to implement. I think the reason a lot of players skip it is because it's mostly just paperwork... you're going from point A to point B... all the stuff the DM prepared is at point B. There's no characters to interact with in the travel between, and if the players do well on some rolls there aren't even any combats. The DM is, if anything, probably just going to roll on an encounter table to determine what happens in the meantime.
I don't necessarily know what the solution should be. But I think the main issue is that there's far less to interact with in exploration/travel than in combat or diplomacy. If you build a character who specializes in diplomacy you end up with in-depth conversations with NPCs, perhaps some counter-rolls for bluffs or arguments. Combat, of course, is the most complex part of the game and where most character abilities are utilized. However, if you have a character built for exploration... it mostly just gives you the ability to skip the exploration part of the game entirely. Roll a high enough Survival check and boom, you just fast-traveled to where ever you were trying to go.
you should read the thread about doing away with short rest. Apparently travel is something that should be ignored after level 5 to some..
I would like to see more checks. The specialties outside of combat have a rather ambivalent effect. Everyone can attempt to pick a lock without sleight of hand, and the DC is never so high as to make it impossible. Even with a 14 dex, which is totally possible even without a dex build, you can do better than 50/50 at such a task.... And that's true for all tasks...
It creates its own homogeny of the classes as well.
But that's a problem of there being nothing later on, and not a rationale to gut the entire class.
If there was nothing past the front-loaded uber-features, there was nothing to gut
If you're suggesting the later features should have been improved to match how great the early ones were... hard pass
lol. Because sneak attack is SOOOOO broken compared to chaos bolt or eldritch blast or those ki dice and that AC that everyone's so against a rogue having but bards and monks should have at level 3 in addition to the bard having access to similarly broken spells now as a full caster with the arcane spell list, (which, the arcane is ALL wizard spells and bards have level 9 spells, so theoretically, as stands, they have access to a monk's AC, a wizard's spell list, d8 hit dice, party buffs for inspiration points, AND more).
yeah. those rogues... so broken. we should cut their dice in half.. Better yet, lets remove the dice at all. Don't need them getting TOO powerful as an uppity martial class that needs to learn its place.
I never took a 5e assassin beyond level 4. Assassinate was the only good thing about it in my opinion.
Expertise, ect. aren't assassin sublass feature, they're just rogue features.
Swashbucker could be just as easilyt handled with a LOT more movement. I prefer higher AC, but when it takes 10-20 feet of movement to get to the target, and then you run away, you just can't run away far enough to avoid the reprisal.... Which being a glass cannon is a problem. Which is why it forces ranged rogues. Which suffer from a wishywashy sneak attack mechanic, which I admit they are fixing.
Thief is in a weird spot, and I guess now that I think about it, it's kind of a core problem to 5e. (Hear me out).
Thief, like the other rogue classes (inquisitor, mastermind, etc) and the ranger and the bard are all suffering from the need to find a balance between what the class is defined by flavor wise and what the class is defined by combat mechanics wise.
And both are subject to constrained mechanics which are trying to keep everything simple. You add too many exceptions/instances, you get complexity and crunch, but the flip side is, you lose a simple to learn system. Conversely, you try and simplify the system too much, and you get 5e's homogeny problem.
Unlike Assassin, Swashbuckler, and Arcane Trickster, the other rogues aren't exactly archetypes based on a unique fighting style or flavor. What's a mastermind going to do? Think me to death? On the other hand, inquisitor is actually where you CAN make use of something more like a "cop" flavor, and give them something like medium armor (or if an AC18 which my cleric starts out with is just "WAAAAAAYYYYY TOO OVERPOWERED!!!!", then you can take your pick of armors they can wear) and a few martial weapon types as well as allowing them the weapon mastery mechanic while denying other rogues that ability.
But I digress.
The ranger suffers from lack of flavor because the flavor it DID have is no longer a part of play. It's simply not a thing the mechanics usually care for. Nobody cares about ration and survival, an half the time people forget terrain rules unless they're long time players/DM's. It's a casualty of rue simplification.
The bard suffers from not finding its place is false. The bard doesn't have a place. Jack of all trades, master of none. It's literally a skill monkey. It shouldn't be excellent at anything, but better than the everyone else is at the stuff they aren't good at.... Meaning that they shouldn't be as good as a fighter or a monk at fighting, but better at fighting than the wizard or the sorcerer. They shouldn't be casting fireballs, but they should be able to cast minor spells because the rogue and fighter aren't really casters. They should have charisma and intelligence as their stat proficiencies, because they are supposed to be charismatic and they're students of the arts and literature (theoretically).
The biggest problem with the bard is that they keep pushing those god damned f***ing INSTRUMENTS!!! WHY IN GOD'S NAME DO I NEED THREE DAMNED INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCIES WHEN MY CHARACTER BARELY GETS THE CHANCE TO USE ONE!?!?!?!?!
Bard should get 2 more languages and either two tool proficiencies OR a musical instrument and a set of tools related to a craft (potter's tools, cartographer, jewelers, etc. but also an artist's tool set, including brush, paints, etc. and maybe a few new tool sets). It would give more use to the proficiencies they get, be much more on flavor of a "jack of all trades" when you pick up the skills others usually gloss over, and just let the damned class breathe a little.
EDIT: maybe the pugilist idea floating around for a subclass might better fit the rogue, either as a new subclass, or under something like the criminal mastermind (think Kingpin from Marvel Comics), or the thief (the thief being the sort of character that is most likely to be a back alley thug perhaps). Unless somehow another beat'em up type is again, "too overpowered" for the rogue with a d4 damage and some grapple/knock out mechanics as level advancement.
There is no reason to give subclass a feature at high levels that has redundancy with a base class feature. Imagine the Rogues 13th level feature was
Unnoticed: you gain a +10 to all stealth checks. Okay I’m extra sneaky. I already have reliable talent and expertise stealth, so I couldn’t roll under a 25 if I maxed dexterity. Now I can’t roll under a 35. Yay this is so fun. Best class feature ever.
You get my point. It’s too late to help the Assassin be sneaky by the late game.
Swashbuckler has enough movement for its hit and run tactics. If you hit with you main weapon don’t take the bonus action attack and instead dash as a bonus action out. Swashy is the best hit and run rogue because they have the easiest time getting their sneak attack and they don’t require the mobile feat.
I can’t agree with you fully on the core issue with thief, other classes, and subclasses, but I do understand were you are coming from with some of your points being really valid. Thief’s major problem is fast hands was too restrictive, but if you loosen it up too much it easily becomes over powered. Mastermind is meant to be a support rouge who gives teammates advantage. Inquisitors could be cops, but if you want armor and weapons that’s what multi classing fighter is for ad would deny other rogue features.
Yes, Ranger flavor is tied mostly to a pillar of the game not used, Travel/Exploration. That doesn’t mean you should gut the flavor from the Ranger. Not a lot of people like the black licorice jellly bean. They keep it around because somebody does.
Bard is definitely looking for a place to land. Also a bard that is not good at anything would never get played. Bards are not Jacks of all Trades, master on none. They are Jacks of all Trades. They can excel in anything, but they aren’t necessarily better at things than other classes. They do get close sometimes. Just because they can throw a fireball doesn’t make them better at it than a wizard. Like I said Bards are meant to cross spell list. So limiting their schools might be the best choice. Maybe even something like they can only have one spell of each level that isn’t divination, enchantment, illusion or transmutation. Magical secrets removes that restriction. Also instruments are core flavor of a Bard and can be used as spell casting focus.
There is no reason to give subclass a feature at high levels that has redundancy with a base class feature. Imagine the Rogues 13th level feature was
Unnoticed: you gain a +10 to all stealth checks. Okay I’m extra sneaky. I already have reliable talent and expertise stealth, so I couldn’t roll under a 25 if I maxed dexterity. Now I can’t roll under a 35. Yay this is so fun. Best class feature ever.
You get my point. It’s too late to help the Assassin be sneaky by the late game.
Swashbuckler has enough movement for its hit and run tactics. If you hit with you main weapon don’t take the bonus action attack and instead dash as a bonus action out. Swashy is the best hit and run rogue because they have the easiest time getting their sneak attack and they don’t require the mobile feat.
I can’t agree with you fully on the core issue with thief, other classes, and subclasses, but I do understand were you are coming from with some of your points being really valid. Thief’s major problem is fast hands was too restrictive, but if you loosen it up too much it easily becomes over powered. Mastermind is meant to be a support rouge who gives teammates advantage. Inquisitors could be cops, but if you want armor and weapons that’s what multi classing fighter is for ad would deny other rogue features.
Yes, Ranger flavor is tied mostly to a pillar of the game not used, Travel/Exploration. That doesn’t mean you should gut the flavor from the Ranger. Not a lot of people like the black licorice jellly bean. They keep it around because somebody does.
Bard is definitely looking for a place to land. Also a bard that is not good at anything would never get played. Bards are not Jacks of all Trades, master on none. They are Jacks of all Trades. They can excel in anything, but they aren’t necessarily better at things than other classes. They do get close sometimes. Just because they can throw a fireball doesn’t make them better at it than a wizard. Like I said Bards are meant to cross spell list. So limiting their schools might be the best choice. Maybe even something like they can only have one spell of each level that isn’t divination, enchantment, illusion or transmutation. Magical secrets removes that restriction. Also instruments are core flavor of a Bard and can be used as spell casting focus.
I'm not asking for a +10 to anything. nor to push something to gamebreaking stats. A small boost can translate to big advantages. A 10 ft increased movement speed can make the difference between a decent retreat and being only a step away from the person you just hit.
The "always poison" is decent enough with the assassin at around level 9-ish without taking away dice that you might go for it. I mean this is a class that used to have an autcrit with double damage, although limited to the first round of combat.
I can also agree with the martial benefits being granted to inquisitor, and was thinking that myself, though truthfully, part of it is that I can't think of much myself. As it is, it's a dip and run or you stay the course for the sneak attack dice, which aren't bad, but it's pretty boring when that's basically all you ever get which wizards get do all the stuff they could before PLUS something else. Or the druid can wild shape PLUS do this other cool thing.
Without destroy balance completely, there's only a handful of things you can play with, including mobility (as I described), alternative damage buffs (and don't have them cost damage for damage. Set up a new resource or have certain conditions met), new ways to prevent damage (or gain resistances), extra attacks (or hit more targets), and basically new spells.
Now I'm not saying do all those things, or do none of those things, but for every class, that's basically what you can do within the framework of combat. For everything that people want to claim about rogues being super amazing, they get one nice thing at level 3 and then that's it, and any conversation about giving them something cool gets shot own as being overpowered.
I'm not wanting to gut the ranger, but I feel the preferred terrain plus swapping is... how to put it? I'm not saying you only get two terrains, I'm saying you get ALL the terrains. which isn't two more than other classes, it's ALL more than other classes. Because lie the weapon mastery they are pushing, the swapping at long rest is unnecessary. You're not going to find a weapon and not be able to use it. At worst, you have to do a take a recharge session, and the game's long rests are broken enough that you're rarely denied the opportunity. You're rarely going to find more than 1 terrain type per travel distance and if you're traveling through the forest to a swamp. there's bound to be a rest before that you can swap from desert, because the long rest swap itself negates the meaning to choice because you can always "change your mind".
I don't know how to fix it though except to reintroduce mechanics in the game that would allow for that option to be brought back in more depth or for it to play more into the core mechanics. I think the former is easier than the latter because black jelly beans (which I agree with you on), but that means a rehaul of the core mechanics, which means a new edition, which isn't happening. i don't know what the fix is for now. I wish they absorbed the rogue's scout subclass to be frank. I wish they also got to be the archer archetype in a way that really leaned into it in a way that the fighter just never does. (the fighter has archers, but they tend to play out weakly). Those are my best ideas to fill in till a new edition.
Bards are broken. You can see my other topic I started... My complaint about the musical instruments is that music isn't the only artistic medium out there. And even more to the point the bard is about words and linguistics. Cutting WORDS, power WORD heal, power WORD kill, Vicious Mockery (being insulting words), COMMAND.
I'm not trying to take away from the flavor. By all means if you want a musical instrument you should have that option, but you don't need it in triplicate, especially if the "jack of all trades" is the forefront of the class.
In my opinion subclasses serve a spesific function: To allow a certain type of fiction to be played, and done in a balanced way. This is always difficult with things like an assassin whos fictional role is to kill things fast, methodically and efficiently.
The way that can be mitigated is to make a strong ability with very limited and situational use. In other words, the current Assassinate ability in 5E. The problem with the new ability is that it doesn't live up to the fiction - the Assassin won't assassinate anything more than any other character. Worse, the rules would make the most efficient assassins out-of-fiction things like a wizard with Animate Object!
As for the early/late progression discussion I believe the current assassinate ability isn't overpowered, and I have played with it quite a lot over multiple years. Have it killed a main boss? Yes. Have it on a semi-regular basis killed a key enemy in an encounter? Yes. Have it been disruptive, or in the long run more powerful than other subclasses powers? No.
I always believe multiclassing should not be encouraged, but neither discouraged - its simply good options for players to create their fiction in the most accurate way possible. The Assassin fits well with many such fictions, and handing out this ability at a point where it can be used by a mostly fighter, or a mostly ranger is a good thing imo. For this reason it was also very good that it didn't scale of rogue level, which would narrow it to a rogue-only use.
That said, i agree the subclass was lackluster after level 3, which was mostly countered by a generic rogues insane lv 11 ability (never roll under 10 on proficient skills), making many inc. me go for 11 rogue levels even if the lv 9 ability was laughable. Since the new rogue moves Reliable Talent to leve 7, this should be looked into. My solution would be to do some smaller adjustments to the poison ability, and a change to the capstone ability to make it feel different from a spellcaster:
3rd Level: Bonus Proficiencies
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with the disguise kit and the poisoner's kit.
3rd Level: Assassinate
Starting at 3rd level, you are at your deadliest when you get the drop on your enemies. During the first round of each combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit.
NOTE: Added the first round clause to avoid the two-round advantage possibility due to surprise-round. Removed the Initiative advantage, since we don't want to frontload more, and initiative can be obtained through other sources.
9th Level: Infiltration Expertise
You are expert at posing as someone else to aid your infiltrations. While in a disguise created using your Disguise Kit, you have Advantage on any Charisma (Deception) check you make while pretending to be someone else. You can also unerringly mimic another person’s speech, handwriting, or both if you have spent at least one hour studying each one.
13th Level: Envenom Weapon
When you use the Poison option of your Cunning Strike, you can also deliver a contract or injury type poison carried on your person, spending that poison. You can choose for the poison to either use its regular saving throw DC, or DC equals 8 + your Proficiency Bonus + your Dexterity modifier.
NOTE: Removed a booring and lackluster ability (+3,5 average damage and ignore poison res) and replaced it with one worth having, that is cool and makes it worth it to keep going rogue after level 7.
17th Level: Death Strike
When you hit with your Sneak Attack on the first round of a combat, your sneak attack damage die increase from d6 to d10.
NOTE: Makes the high level Assassin better than most at what they should be good at - reliable (non-save) damage when surprising enemies.
Is this powerful? Sure, but its still debatable if it beats a spellcaster (or the new Thief subclass) at the task at hand - surprising someone and killing them quickly. At least it will feel significantly different, and be more reliable as no saving throws are involved.
I'm not asking for a +10 to anything. nor to push something to gamebreaking stats. A small boost can translate to big advantages. A 10 ft increased movement speed can make the difference between a decent retreat and being only a step away from the person you just hit.
The "always poison" is decent enough with the assassin at around level 9-ish without taking away dice that you might go for it. I mean this is a class that used to have an autcrit with double damage, although limited to the first round of combat.
I can also agree with the martial benefits being granted to inquisitor, and was thinking that myself, though truthfully, part of it is that I can't think of much myself. As it is, it's a dip and run or you stay the course for the sneak attack dice, which aren't bad, but it's pretty boring when that's basically all you ever get which wizards get do all the stuff they could before PLUS something else. Or the druid can wild shape PLUS do this other cool thing.
Without destroy balance completely, there's only a handful of things you can play with, including mobility (as I described), alternative damage buffs (and don't have them cost damage for damage. Set up a new resource or have certain conditions met), new ways to prevent damage (or gain resistances), extra attacks (or hit more targets), and basically new spells.
Now I'm not saying do all those things, or do none of those things, but for every class, that's basically what you can do within the framework of combat. For everything that people want to claim about rogues being super amazing, they get one nice thing at level 3 and then that's it, and any conversation about giving them something cool gets shot own as being overpowered.
I'm not wanting to gut the ranger, but I feel the preferred terrain plus swapping is... how to put it? I'm not saying you only get two terrains, I'm saying you get ALL the terrains. which isn't two more than other classes, it's ALL more than other classes. Because lie the weapon mastery they are pushing, the swapping at long rest is unnecessary. You're not going to find a weapon and not be able to use it. At worst, you have to do a take a recharge session, and the game's long rests are broken enough that you're rarely denied the opportunity. You're rarely going to find more than 1 terrain type per travel distance and if you're traveling through the forest to a swamp. there's bound to be a rest before that you can swap from desert, because the long rest swap itself negates the meaning to choice because you can always "change your mind".
I don't know how to fix it though except to reintroduce mechanics in the game that would allow for that option to be brought back in more depth or for it to play more into the core mechanics. I think the former is easier than the latter because black jelly beans (which I agree with you on), but that means a rehaul of the core mechanics, which means a new edition, which isn't happening. i don't know what the fix is for now. I wish they absorbed the rogue's scout subclass to be frank. I wish they also got to be the archer archetype in a way that really leaned into it in a way that the fighter just never does. (the fighter has archers, but they tend to play out weakly). Those are my best ideas to fill in till a new edition.
Bards are broken. You can see my other topic I started... My complaint about the musical instruments is that music isn't the only artistic medium out there. And even more to the point the bard is about words and linguistics. Cutting WORDS, power WORD heal, power WORD kill, Vicious Mockery (being insulting words), COMMAND.
I'm not trying to take away from the flavor. By all means if you want a musical instrument you should have that option, but you don't need it in triplicate, especially if the "jack of all trades" is the forefront of the class.
My point was there isn’t much you can do that late to increase the assassins stealth. A minimum roll of 25 is going to beat most creatures and players passive perception. Even actively seeking you DC 25 perception check is going to be a tough mark to hit. The extra 10 isn’t game breaking it’s almost pointless. Again the poison option actually adds 1d6 to your sneak attack. You aren’t losing a die once you hit 13th.
As far as Ranger you would basically giving them advantage on all Nature checks and “Survival checks to track” if you gave them all terrains under the new 5eR UA rules, I’m okay with that. Just make it all Nature and all Survival checks and I would be okay with that. Under the current 5e rules it would be over powered to give them all terrains. People sleep on how good Natural Explorer really is. You would be giving them Expertise on all Int and Wisdom checks pertaining to the natural world. I wouldn’t mind it, but people would cry over powered on that.
The problem you have with bard is competing images. What the bard was, compared to what the bard has become, compared to your image of the bard. 5e failed to naturally give bard its musical side. Song of rest is all that comes to mind off the top of my head. Look at Bard abilities in previous games and other media and you will understand their strong flavor tie to instruments. Even storytelling bards would have some musical accompaniment for their epic tales.
In my opinion subclasses serve a spesific function: To allow a certain type of fiction to be played, and done in a balanced way. This is always difficult with things like an assassin whos fictional role is to kill things fast, methodically and efficiently.
The way that can be mitigated is to make a strong ability with very limited and situational use. In other words, the current Assassinate ability in 5E. The problem with the new ability is that it doesn't live up to the fiction - the Assassin won't assassinate anything more than any other character. Worse, the rules would make the most efficient assassins out-of-fiction things like a wizard with Animate Object!
As for the early/late progression discussion I believe the current assassinate ability isn't overpowered, and I have played with it quite a lot over multiple years. Have it killed a main boss? Yes. Have it on a semi-regular basis killed a key enemy in an encounter? Yes. Have it been disruptive, or in the long run more powerful than other subclasses powers? No.
I always believe multiclassing should not be encouraged, but neither discouraged - its simply good options for players to create their fiction in the most accurate way possible. The Assassin fits well with many such fictions, and handing out this ability at a point where it can be used by a mostly fighter, or a mostly ranger is a good thing imo. For this reason it was also very good that it didn't scale of rogue level, which would narrow it to a rogue-only use.
That said, i agree the subclass was lackluster after level 3, which was mostly countered by a generic rogues insane lv 11 ability (never roll under 10 on proficient skills), making many inc. me go for 11 rogue levels even if the lv 9 ability was laughable. Since the new rogue moves Reliable Talent to leve 7, this should be looked into. My solution would be to do some smaller adjustments to the poison ability, and a change to the capstone ability to make it feel different from a spellcaster:
3rd Level: Bonus Proficiencies
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with the disguise kit and the poisoner's kit.
3rd Level: Assassinate
Starting at 3rd level, you are at your deadliest when you get the drop on your enemies. During the first round of each combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit.
NOTE: Added the first round clause to avoid the two-round advantage possibility due to surprise-round. Removed the Initiative advantage, since we don't want to frontload more, and initiative can be obtained through other sources.
9th Level: Infiltration Expertise
You are expert at posing as someone else to aid your infiltrations. While in a disguise created using your Disguise Kit, you have Advantage on any Charisma (Deception) check you make while pretending to be someone else. You can also unerringly mimic another person’s speech, handwriting, or both if you have spent at least one hour studying each one.
13th Level: Envenom Weapon
When you use the Poison option of your Cunning Strike, you can also deliver a contract or injury type poison carried on your person, spending that poison. You can choose for the poison to either use its regular saving throw DC, or DC equals 8 + your Proficiency Bonus + your Dexterity modifier.
NOTE: Removed a booring and lackluster ability (+3,5 average damage and ignore poison res) and replaced it with one worth having, that is cool and makes it worth it to keep going rogue after level 7.
17th Level: Death Strike
When you hit with your Sneak Attack on the first round of a combat, your sneak attack damage die increase from d6 to d10.
NOTE: Makes the high level Assassin better than most at what they should be good at - reliable (non-save) damage when surprising enemies.
Is this powerful? Sure, but its still debatable if it beats a spellcaster (or the new Thief subclass) at the task at hand - surprising someone and killing them quickly. At least it will feel significantly different, and be more reliable as no saving throws are involved.
So the auto crit is epic and weak because it only works on the surprise round. There is no way for a player o guarantee a surprise round. That’s why they are moving away from it to something more contestant.
The problem with the whole poison thing is there aren’t many good poisons officially in the game and you end up in a mother may I situation with you DM about what poisons you have materials to make or can find to purchase. They want to move away from that set up. You make the 13th level ability Master of Poisons: and have you create amber of listed poisons each time you finish a long rest. Set up like the Alchemist Artificer’s ability to make special potions.
I think limiting things to the first round of combat is bad design. What if you can’t get in range on the first round of combat. Half the things that make you special are gone.
My point was there isn’t much you can do that late to increase the assassins stealth. A minimum roll of 25 is going to beat most creatures and players passive perception. Even actively seeking you DC 25 perception check is going to be a tough mark to hit. The extra 10 isn’t game breaking it’s almost pointless. Again the poison option actually adds 1d6 to your sneak attack. You aren’t losing a die once you hit 13th.
As far as Ranger you would basically giving them advantage on all Nature checks and “Survival checks to track” if you gave them all terrains under the new 5eR UA rules, I’m okay with that. Just make it all Nature and all Survival checks and I would be okay with that. Under the current 5e rules it would be over powered to give them all terrains. People sleep on how good Natural Explorer really is. You would be giving them Expertise on all Int and Wisdom checks pertaining to the natural world. I wouldn’t mind it, but people would cry over powered on that.
The problem you have with bard is competing images. What the bard was, compared to what the bard has become, compared to your image of the bard. 5e failed to naturally give bard its musical side. Song of rest is all that comes to mind off the top of my head. Look at Bard abilities in previous games and other media and you will understand their strong flavor tie to instruments. Even storytelling bards would have some musical accompaniment for their epic tales.
So the auto crit is epic and weak because it only works on the surprise round. There is no way for a player o guarantee a surprise round. That’s why they are moving away from it to something more contestant.
The problem with the whole poison thing is there aren’t many good poisons officially in the game and you end up in a mother may I situation with you DM about what poisons you have materials to make or can find to purchase. They want to move away from that set up. You make the 13th level ability Master of Poisons: and have you create amber of listed poisons each time you finish a long rest. Set up like the Alchemist Artificer’s ability to make special potions.
I think limiting things to the first round of combat is bad design. What if you can’t get in range on the first round of combat. Half the things that make you special are gone.
I think for the most part I agree with you on all points, and that I prefer our other fellow's version of working with poison (plus your tweaks) than I do what we have. Except for the bard's purpose... But I also think it's just quibbling over smaller points at this stage.
i honestly think that if they want to get rid of abilities that are niche and require some form of dm fiat the whole assassin class is basically dead, as it gets to powerful if it is reliable in all contexts and too weak at its fiction if it gets “adjusted” in power to fit a reliable interpretation.
Going the reliable route makes me seriously worried for the whole game though, as it gives me terrible 4th edition vibes. A game that felt like a mmo computer game - very balanced and very booring.
I’m pretty sure we aren’t going 4e route yet since fighters didn’t get a big enough overhaul for that. What they are trying to do is make sure everyone playing an assassin is getting a similar experience. In current 5e two people at different tables could have completely different views on the Assassin because of at table experience. On DM constantly let’s the party have surprise while the other doesn’t. One DM lets his rogue make up home brew poisons and the other doesn’t and doesn’t give him easy access to the poisons in the DMG (which honestly aren’t that great and unique). They want to move away from DM fiat as you call it. That doesn’t mean the mother may I will be completely erased, but your experience with the class and it’s features shouldn’t be based upon the DM giving you more surprise rounds than and poisons and home brew poisons.
I'm starting to realize that the Assassin is one of the most table-dependent subclasses in the game. All of their infiltration/espionage-based Subclass features are only valuable 1.) If the DM is creating scenarios that specifically give time and access to the tools needed to use your subclass features and 2.) If the DM doesn't allow other players to attempt the same thing without specifically having a subclass feature for it. The reason the Auto-Crit is so demanded by long-term Assassin players is because it is the ONLY good feature the subclass had originally. And speaking of, it's so good that the subclass is still very popular despite how bad the rest of it is. I've already said that my ideal solution would be to make the auto-crit a limited use, higher level feature, but I definitely think that, of all the Rogue Subclasses, Assassin probably most needed a full, top to bottom restructure. It's just a badly designed subclass that has only avoided the reputation of stuff like the Purple Dragon Knight, 4 Elements Monk, or the original Beastmaster Ranger by virtue of having a Cool Name and for having an easily exploitable 3rd level feature.
I’m pretty sure we aren’t going 4e route yet since fighters didn’t get a big enough overhaul for that. What they are trying to do is make sure everyone playing an assassin is getting a similar experience. In current 5e two people at different tables could have completely different views on the Assassin because of at table experience. On DM constantly let’s the party have surprise while the other doesn’t. One DM lets his rogue make up home brew poisons and the other doesn’t and doesn’t give him easy access to the poisons in the DMG (which honestly aren’t that great and unique). They want to move away from DM fiat as you call it. That doesn’t mean the mother may I will be completely erased, but your experience with the class and it’s features shouldn’t be based upon the DM giving you more surprise rounds than and poisons and home brew poisons.
I'm all for removing a lot of the DM dependency for the reasons you state, and I'm not wanting anything like an MMO experience, but on the other hand, OneDnD seems like its trying to push in that direction, mostly because the rogue isn't the only class getting the video game treatment. A lot of spells are getting standardized, every creature and player has a "creature type", etc.
I'm starting to realize that the Assassin is one of the most table-dependent subclasses in the game. All of their infiltration/espionage-based Subclass features are only valuable 1.) If the DM is creating scenarios that specifically give time and access to the tools needed to use your subclass features and 2.) If the DM doesn't allow other players to attempt the same thing without specifically having a subclass feature for it. The reason the Auto-Crit is so demanded by long-term Assassin players is because it is the ONLY good feature the subclass had originally. And speaking of, it's so good that the subclass is still very popular despite how bad the rest of it is. I've already said that my ideal solution would be to make the auto-crit a limited use, higher level feature, but I definitely think that, of all the Rogue Subclasses, Assassin probably most needed a full, top to bottom restructure. It's just a badly designed subclass that has only avoided the reputation of stuff like the Purple Dragon Knight, 4 Elements Monk, or the original Beastmaster Ranger by virtue of having a Cool Name and for having an easily exploitable 3rd level feature.
ALL rogues are like that except for the swashbuckler because its specialty is one on one melee.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So after looking over the latest One D&D playtest materials and I am rather shocked to see Assassin and Gloomstalker getting a solid nerfhammer, already beeing niche subclasses that had one purpose - make for great flash-damage.
Assassin subclass (rogue)
5E
a) Auto-crit against surprised enemies
One D&D
a) Advantage to initiative
b) +rogue level to damage with sneak attack during first round of combat.
c) When using poison option of cunning strike, enemies who fail save take +2d6 damage.
This is problematic on multiple levels. First and foremost, the class was already a niche class with a single purpose - deal high and reliable surprise damage. Now its just a slight damage increase, and it doesn't work at all with multiclassing. For instance a lv 10 assassin who is trying to assassinate someone deals 1d6 (short sword)+5d6 (sneak attack)+10 (assassin class)+10 (dex, magic weapon etc). That is 41 damage, 10 more than any other rogue before taking their abilities into account. After that one hit, the assassin has nothing more to offer really. In 5E you would instead deal +21 damage from autocrit, it would work well with martial multiclasses such as fighter, ranger etc. and assassin was indeed the best at their job - dealing massive flash damage.
To compensate the Assassin gets lackluster poison ability and advantage to initiative (welcome!)
As written, if I were to play an assassin from an optimalization standpoint I would likely play a thief (which really got the steroids in the playtest). At level 10, deal 31 damage then use a bonus action to activate a staff of something (lets say lightning bolt) for an additional 14 damage (halved for possible save), and still not burning the whole classes reportoir. This gets even worse at high level, when the Assassin can force a save or deal approx +21 damage (12d6, averaged and divided by 2 for the potential save) while the Thief gets an extra turn (inc +full sneak attack)! This is again a Thief doing exactly what the archtypical Assassin is supposed to excel at, and the Thief absolutely doesnt dabble in.
My suggestion:
a) Keep the core and cool part of the assassin - the auto-crits. Make them a bit more reliable by removing the surprised clause, making the assassin capable to auto-critting vs. targets who have not yet acted, along with the advantage.
b) Retain the advantage to initiative. (a fair boost to a very particular subclass)
c) Remove the lackluster +2d6 damage with poison and instead say that the assassin can apply a carried poison as part of usin the Poison option from Cunning Strike. That would actually be useful, cool and fit the archetype.
d) Make the level 17 ability deal bonus +5d6 sneak attack damage instead of save or double. Assassin = reliable. Save or none is the opposite of reliable. if that feels to booring for the Flavour-department, give them the extra attack feature or something that leans into the reliable martial damage expert.
Gloom Stalker subclass (ranger)
5E
a) +1 attack the first round of combat, and it deals +1d8 damage
b) Once per round, when you miss with an attack you can make an extra attack
c) Reaction to impose disadvantage on an attack roll against you that didnt have advantage.
One D&D
a) A number of times equal to your wisdom modifier, and limited to once/turn you can deal +1d8 damage and frighten an enemy for 1 round.
d) When using ability a) you either get an extra attack against a new target, or the fear effect hits everyone on 10 feet radius.
e) Reaction to impose disadvantage and potential teleport
As with the Assassin the Gloom Staker also lost their essential +1 attack during the first round for a measly fear ability likely usable 1/long rest. I can say already that with this change Gloom Stalker will go from the most beloved Ranger subclass to one hardly used.
My suggestion:
Just keep the Gloomstalker as it is - its the one cool part of the ranger as it is.
Overall I am getting 4ed vibes which is not a good thing. Anything that can be theorycrafted, benefits from multiclassing or can stack is removed (extra attack, critical hits) and instead flat and hard-limited damage increases (often +XdXdamage 1/round, with no logic behind the 1/round limit) are handed out. What 5e managed to do exceptionally well was to retain a level of balance while avoiding just this. It allowed for weird multiclass interactions, classes doing entirely different things, uncapped abilities and so on and thus felt really cool.
I should also note that its interesting that these flash-oriented elements are getting hit so hard, while it seems spellcasters with Animate Object and other massive damage spells pass with mostly power-increases.
Thoughts?
I never took a 5e assassin beyond level 4. Assassinate was the only good thing about it in my opinion. I like the new assassin better and like that it’s not requiring surprise, but the the additional damage needs to be better. Maybe instead of flat damage make it an additional sneak attack dice. 1 at 3rd, 2 at 7th, 3 at 11th, 4 at 15th and 5 at 19th. That would give you a nice boost to damage in that first round.
Gloomstalker was basically the best ranger. Which is a bad thing since it was much better than most Rangers until Tasha’s. It’s probably still the best Ranger after Tasha’s. The biggest problem with the new version is the fear effect doesn’t work because you are invisible in darkness. Maybe a save against blindness instead of frightened would work. Losing the extra attack in the 1st round is a fair exchange for being given Wis mod d8s to and to attacks. When you factor in that you could miss that extra attack (I have) the new version is actually better.
I think that's the real problem that these two classes were facing... they were so front-loaded with such amazing features that they were getting overly used in multiclassing. It was too easy to put 3 levels in either then just go fighter... Hell, any time I see someone try to build the "ultimate martial damage dealer", it usually starts with Assassin and Gloomstalker.
Personally? I don't like assassin. It's not always easy to get surprise in the first round of combat, especially if you're traveling with your big armored paladin buddy and some barefoot druid stumbling through an armory with a chipmunk on their shoulder or whatever. So it's mostly useful for sneaking off on your own, which is cool that it's an option, but it rarely goes well for anyone involved. I always think of the first campaign of Critical Role, where one of the players was an Assassin Rogue and he really only used his assassinate feature like... twice? In the whole campaign? Maybe it was 3 or 4, but either way it's really hard to actually utilize. Then all the other Assassin class features suck... Infiltration Expertise is something you could manage just as well by having a decent Deception score, Impostor is just a harder-to-use version of the Actor feat, and Death Strike is really only useful in the same situations that Asassinate already is. I think Assassin needed a complete overhaul, and I'm glad they got it. That said... the auto-crit is so iconic to the subclass.
I'd say... make it a higher level feature, and just give the player a number of uses per day. You hit 13th level, now 3 times a day you can auto-crit. Makes it more reliable as something you can actually use without your DM deliberately building scenarios that exist just so you have an excuse to use your cool assassin feature, but it's a high enough level feature that not everybody is going to include a 3 level Rogue dip just to snag it.
Same suggestion for Gloomstalker... just put that additional attack as a higher level feature. It's still a solid subclass otherwise.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
But that's a problem of there being nothing later on, and not a rationale to gut the entire class. In fact, I would be more likely to multiclass just for lack of any benefit staying in a class than not. Especially when Ranger in particular is considered one of the weakest in the entire game (and rogue being DM dependent for sneak attack/advantage isn't far behind, which is one of the things OneDND seems to be inching towards fixing)
I've not been happy with cunning strikes. I hate it. It's just stupid. There's a million other options they could have to give the classes later on, but they don't.
I see assassins getting poison damage outright, and having increased stealth and hide abilities. Assassins lurk in shadows after all.
Swashbucker needs a bit of an AC boost since its supposed to be in melee range, or it should have charm/frighten (intimidate) without expending resources. (i'll let them keep the trip option for a die).
Thief... isn't bad.... It's not exciting, but it's not bad. Arcane trickster is fine. It's a spellcasting rogue, why would it even NOT be ok as a partial caster?
In fact, they do those nice things for the casters, ignoring the fact that they've historically had few "extras" as they have an ever growing spell list and their spells scale, and if anything they get new ways to cast spells. and you... know... they're casters.
The bard just kills me with everything it gets. As well as the partial caster paladin...
Rangers and terrain just should be done away with. Not that they don't get the bonuses, just the picking terrain BS needs to be gone. You can switch them every short rest, so why even bother? And then it frees up a slot for anther actual legit boost to the class rather than saying "oh yeah, no you can make another absolutely pointless choice that you can change again after a long rest".
The barrage is pretty damned sweet, but it comes so late. They could scale it back and give it at a earlier yet more midrange level, like 7 or 9.
I can't say much for gloomstalker, but just in general, they don't seem to get the classes, much less the subclasses... unless you're a caster.
Assassinate needs more damage but the new Assassin is overall better. Reliable talent, high dex and expertise means stealth checks aren’t an issue at higher levels. EnvenomWeapon basically makes using the Cunning strike free while gaining an additional 1d6 with the weakness being that it’s poison damage. Every rogue is giving up 1d6 to do this. So long as a creature doesn’t have immunity to poison damage Assassins deal 1d6 more damage per sneak attack.
Swashbucklers are not front line melee types. They are hit and run types. That’s why fancy footwork give you a free disengage. They are meant to be dual wielders who attack, attack with their bonus action and still run away.
Thief is in a wild space right now depending on what magic items they could get their hands on.
Bards are searching for a place to land. Easiest fix is to give them access to all spell lists at level one, but limit them to abjuration, enchantment, divination, and illusion. Magical secrets later allows them to pick from all schools
The terrain thing for Ranger is the only flavor left for the class. They need to remove the limit on survival checks though. It shouldn’t only be to track.
Conjure Barrage is 9th and Conjure Volley is 17th, both should be optional because many melee Rangers don’t like the flavor. At 17th it should be a choice between Conjure Volley, and Steel Wind Strike. I’m not sure what the optional 9th level spell should be. There is nothing iconic at that level for Rangers, so they may need to make a new spell that fits.
Gloomstalker would be fine if they didn’t forget that the fear effect doesn’t work while you’re invisible.
Expertise, ect. aren't assassin sublass feature, they're just rogue features.
Swashbucker could be just as easilyt handled with a LOT more movement. I prefer higher AC, but when it takes 10-20 feet of movement to get to the target, and then you run away, you just can't run away far enough to avoid the reprisal.... Which being a glass cannon is a problem. Which is why it forces ranged rogues. Which suffer from a wishywashy sneak attack mechanic, which I admit they are fixing.
Thief is in a weird spot, and I guess now that I think about it, it's kind of a core problem to 5e. (Hear me out).
Thief, like the other rogue classes (inquisitor, mastermind, etc) and the ranger and the bard are all suffering from the need to find a balance between what the class is defined by flavor wise and what the class is defined by combat mechanics wise.
And both are subject to constrained mechanics which are trying to keep everything simple. You add too many exceptions/instances, you get complexity and crunch, but the flip side is, you lose a simple to learn system. Conversely, you try and simplify the system too much, and you get 5e's homogeny problem.
Unlike Assassin, Swashbuckler, and Arcane Trickster, the other rogues aren't exactly archetypes based on a unique fighting style or flavor. What's a mastermind going to do? Think me to death? On the other hand, inquisitor is actually where you CAN make use of something more like a "cop" flavor, and give them something like medium armor (or if an AC18 which my cleric starts out with is just "WAAAAAAYYYYY TOO OVERPOWERED!!!!", then you can take your pick of armors they can wear) and a few martial weapon types as well as allowing them the weapon mastery mechanic while denying other rogues that ability.
But I digress.
The ranger suffers from lack of flavor because the flavor it DID have is no longer a part of play. It's simply not a thing the mechanics usually care for. Nobody cares about ration and survival, an half the time people forget terrain rules unless they're long time players/DM's. It's a casualty of rue simplification.
The bard suffers from not finding its place is false. The bard doesn't have a place. Jack of all trades, master of none. It's literally a skill monkey. It shouldn't be excellent at anything, but better than the everyone else is at the stuff they aren't good at.... Meaning that they shouldn't be as good as a fighter or a monk at fighting, but better at fighting than the wizard or the sorcerer. They shouldn't be casting fireballs, but they should be able to cast minor spells because the rogue and fighter aren't really casters. They should have charisma and intelligence as their stat proficiencies, because they are supposed to be charismatic and they're students of the arts and literature (theoretically).
The biggest problem with the bard is that they keep pushing those god damned f***ing INSTRUMENTS!!! WHY IN GOD'S NAME DO I NEED THREE DAMNED INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCIES WHEN MY CHARACTER BARELY GETS THE CHANCE TO USE ONE!?!?!?!?!
Bard should get 2 more languages and either two tool proficiencies OR a musical instrument and a set of tools related to a craft (potter's tools, cartographer, jewelers, etc. but also an artist's tool set, including brush, paints, etc. and maybe a few new tool sets). It would give more use to the proficiencies they get, be much more on flavor of a "jack of all trades" when you pick up the skills others usually gloss over, and just let the damned class breathe a little.
EDIT: maybe the pugilist idea floating around for a subclass might better fit the rogue, either as a new subclass, or under something like the criminal mastermind (think Kingpin from Marvel Comics), or the thief (the thief being the sort of character that is most likely to be a back alley thug perhaps). Unless somehow another beat'em up type is again, "too overpowered" for the rogue with a d4 damage and some grapple/knock out mechanics as level advancement.
I think that's true, but I actually think One D&D would be a good way for them to make travel and exploration easier to use and more fun to implement. I think the reason a lot of players skip it is because it's mostly just paperwork... you're going from point A to point B... all the stuff the DM prepared is at point B. There's no characters to interact with in the travel between, and if the players do well on some rolls there aren't even any combats. The DM is, if anything, probably just going to roll on an encounter table to determine what happens in the meantime.
I don't necessarily know what the solution should be. But I think the main issue is that there's far less to interact with in exploration/travel than in combat or diplomacy. If you build a character who specializes in diplomacy you end up with in-depth conversations with NPCs, perhaps some counter-rolls for bluffs or arguments. Combat, of course, is the most complex part of the game and where most character abilities are utilized. However, if you have a character built for exploration... it mostly just gives you the ability to skip the exploration part of the game entirely. Roll a high enough Survival check and boom, you just fast-traveled to where ever you were trying to go.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
This is also why DMs just don't bother preparing stuff for the travel scenes. Why bother spending an hour of your time preparing an encounter than will just get skipped if someone rolls a high enough check? So it becomes a cyclical effect, players can just skip it so DMs don't bother prepping so DMs make it easier for players to skip it b/c they haven't prepped it. IMO any activity, encounter or part of the game that a DM will have to put effort into preparing should not be easily skippable by the players.
If there was nothing past the front-loaded uber-features, there was nothing to gut
If you're suggesting the later features should have been improved to match how great the early ones were... hard pass
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
you should read the thread about doing away with short rest. Apparently travel is something that should be ignored after level 5 to some..
I would like to see more checks. The specialties outside of combat have a rather ambivalent effect. Everyone can attempt to pick a lock without sleight of hand, and the DC is never so high as to make it impossible. Even with a 14 dex, which is totally possible even without a dex build, you can do better than 50/50 at such a task.... And that's true for all tasks...
It creates its own homogeny of the classes as well.
lol. Because sneak attack is SOOOOO broken compared to chaos bolt or eldritch blast or those ki dice and that AC that everyone's so against a rogue having but bards and monks should have at level 3 in addition to the bard having access to similarly broken spells now as a full caster with the arcane spell list, (which, the arcane is ALL wizard spells and bards have level 9 spells, so theoretically, as stands, they have access to a monk's AC, a wizard's spell list, d8 hit dice, party buffs for inspiration points, AND more).
yeah. those rogues... so broken. we should cut their dice in half.. Better yet, lets remove the dice at all. Don't need them getting TOO powerful as an uppity martial class that needs to learn its place.
There is no reason to give subclass a feature at high levels that has redundancy with a base class feature. Imagine the Rogues 13th level feature was
Unnoticed: you gain a +10 to all stealth checks.
Okay I’m extra sneaky. I already have reliable talent and expertise stealth, so I couldn’t roll under a 25 if I maxed dexterity. Now I can’t roll under a 35. Yay this is so fun. Best class feature ever.
You get my point. It’s too late to help the Assassin be sneaky by the late game.
Swashbuckler has enough movement for its hit and run tactics. If you hit with you main weapon don’t take the bonus action attack and instead dash as a bonus action out. Swashy is the best hit and run rogue because they have the easiest time getting their sneak attack and they don’t require the mobile feat.
I can’t agree with you fully on the core issue with thief, other classes, and subclasses, but I do understand were you are coming from with some of your points being really valid.
Thief’s major problem is fast hands was too restrictive, but if you loosen it up too much it easily becomes over powered.
Mastermind is meant to be a support rouge who gives teammates advantage.
Inquisitors could be cops, but if you want armor and weapons that’s what multi classing fighter is for ad would deny other rogue features.
Yes, Ranger flavor is tied mostly to a pillar of the game not used, Travel/Exploration. That doesn’t mean you should gut the flavor from the Ranger. Not a lot of people like the black licorice jellly bean. They keep it around because somebody does.
Bard is definitely looking for a place to land. Also a bard that is not good at anything would never get played. Bards are not Jacks of all Trades, master on none. They are Jacks of all Trades. They can excel in anything, but they aren’t necessarily better at things than other classes. They do get close sometimes. Just because they can throw a fireball doesn’t make them better at it than a wizard. Like I said Bards are meant to cross spell list. So limiting their schools might be the best choice. Maybe even something like they can only have one spell of each level that isn’t divination, enchantment, illusion or transmutation. Magical secrets removes that restriction. Also instruments are core flavor of a Bard and can be used as spell casting focus.
I'm not asking for a +10 to anything. nor to push something to gamebreaking stats. A small boost can translate to big advantages. A 10 ft increased movement speed can make the difference between a decent retreat and being only a step away from the person you just hit.
The "always poison" is decent enough with the assassin at around level 9-ish without taking away dice that you might go for it. I mean this is a class that used to have an autcrit with double damage, although limited to the first round of combat.
I can also agree with the martial benefits being granted to inquisitor, and was thinking that myself, though truthfully, part of it is that I can't think of much myself. As it is, it's a dip and run or you stay the course for the sneak attack dice, which aren't bad, but it's pretty boring when that's basically all you ever get which wizards get do all the stuff they could before PLUS something else. Or the druid can wild shape PLUS do this other cool thing.
Without destroy balance completely, there's only a handful of things you can play with, including mobility (as I described), alternative damage buffs (and don't have them cost damage for damage. Set up a new resource or have certain conditions met), new ways to prevent damage (or gain resistances), extra attacks (or hit more targets), and basically new spells.
Now I'm not saying do all those things, or do none of those things, but for every class, that's basically what you can do within the framework of combat. For everything that people want to claim about rogues being super amazing, they get one nice thing at level 3 and then that's it, and any conversation about giving them something cool gets shot own as being overpowered.
I'm not wanting to gut the ranger, but I feel the preferred terrain plus swapping is... how to put it? I'm not saying you only get two terrains, I'm saying you get ALL the terrains. which isn't two more than other classes, it's ALL more than other classes. Because lie the weapon mastery they are pushing, the swapping at long rest is unnecessary. You're not going to find a weapon and not be able to use it. At worst, you have to do a take a recharge session, and the game's long rests are broken enough that you're rarely denied the opportunity.
You're rarely going to find more than 1 terrain type per travel distance and if you're traveling through the forest to a swamp. there's bound to be a rest before that you can swap from desert, because the long rest swap itself negates the meaning to choice because you can always "change your mind".
I don't know how to fix it though except to reintroduce mechanics in the game that would allow for that option to be brought back in more depth or for it to play more into the core mechanics. I think the former is easier than the latter because black jelly beans (which I agree with you on), but that means a rehaul of the core mechanics, which means a new edition, which isn't happening. i don't know what the fix is for now. I wish they absorbed the rogue's scout subclass to be frank. I wish they also got to be the archer archetype in a way that really leaned into it in a way that the fighter just never does. (the fighter has archers, but they tend to play out weakly). Those are my best ideas to fill in till a new edition.
Bards are broken. You can see my other topic I started... My complaint about the musical instruments is that music isn't the only artistic medium out there. And even more to the point the bard is about words and linguistics. Cutting WORDS, power WORD heal, power WORD kill, Vicious Mockery (being insulting words), COMMAND.
I'm not trying to take away from the flavor. By all means if you want a musical instrument you should have that option, but you don't need it in triplicate, especially if the "jack of all trades" is the forefront of the class.
In my opinion subclasses serve a spesific function: To allow a certain type of fiction to be played, and done in a balanced way. This is always difficult with things like an assassin whos fictional role is to kill things fast, methodically and efficiently.
The way that can be mitigated is to make a strong ability with very limited and situational use. In other words, the current Assassinate ability in 5E. The problem with the new ability is that it doesn't live up to the fiction - the Assassin won't assassinate anything more than any other character. Worse, the rules would make the most efficient assassins out-of-fiction things like a wizard with Animate Object!
As for the early/late progression discussion I believe the current assassinate ability isn't overpowered, and I have played with it quite a lot over multiple years. Have it killed a main boss? Yes. Have it on a semi-regular basis killed a key enemy in an encounter? Yes. Have it been disruptive, or in the long run more powerful than other subclasses powers? No.
I always believe multiclassing should not be encouraged, but neither discouraged - its simply good options for players to create their fiction in the most accurate way possible. The Assassin fits well with many such fictions, and handing out this ability at a point where it can be used by a mostly fighter, or a mostly ranger is a good thing imo. For this reason it was also very good that it didn't scale of rogue level, which would narrow it to a rogue-only use.
That said, i agree the subclass was lackluster after level 3, which was mostly countered by a generic rogues insane lv 11 ability (never roll under 10 on proficient skills), making many inc. me go for 11 rogue levels even if the lv 9 ability was laughable. Since the new rogue moves Reliable Talent to leve 7, this should be looked into. My solution would be to do some smaller adjustments to the poison ability, and a change to the capstone ability to make it feel different from a spellcaster:
3rd Level: Bonus Proficiencies
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with the disguise kit and the poisoner's kit.
3rd Level: Assassinate
Starting at 3rd level, you are at your deadliest when you get the drop on your enemies. During the first round of each combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit.
NOTE: Added the first round clause to avoid the two-round advantage possibility due to surprise-round. Removed the Initiative advantage, since we don't want to frontload more, and initiative can be obtained through other sources.
9th Level: Infiltration Expertise
You are expert at posing as someone else to aid your infiltrations. While in a disguise created using your Disguise Kit, you have Advantage on any Charisma (Deception) check you make while pretending to be someone else. You can also unerringly mimic another person’s speech, handwriting, or both if you have spent at least one hour studying each one.
13th Level: Envenom Weapon
When you use the Poison option of your Cunning Strike, you can also deliver a contract or injury type poison carried on your person, spending that poison. You can choose for the poison to either use its regular saving throw DC, or DC equals 8 + your Proficiency Bonus + your Dexterity modifier.
NOTE: Removed a booring and lackluster ability (+3,5 average damage and ignore poison res) and replaced it with one worth having, that is cool and makes it worth it to keep going rogue after level 7.
17th Level: Death Strike
When you hit with your Sneak Attack on the first round of a combat, your sneak attack damage die increase from d6 to d10.
NOTE: Makes the high level Assassin better than most at what they should be good at - reliable (non-save) damage when surprising enemies.
Is this powerful? Sure, but its still debatable if it beats a spellcaster (or the new Thief subclass) at the task at hand - surprising someone and killing them quickly. At least it will feel significantly different, and be more reliable as no saving throws are involved.
My point was there isn’t much you can do that late to increase the assassins stealth. A minimum roll of 25 is going to beat most creatures and players passive perception. Even actively seeking you DC 25 perception check is going to be a tough mark to hit. The extra 10 isn’t game breaking it’s almost pointless.
Again the poison option actually adds 1d6 to your sneak attack. You aren’t losing a die once you hit 13th.
As far as Ranger you would basically giving them advantage on all Nature checks and “Survival checks to track” if you gave them all terrains under the new 5eR UA rules, I’m okay with that. Just make it all Nature and all Survival checks and I would be okay with that. Under the current 5e rules it would be over powered to give them all terrains. People sleep on how good Natural Explorer really is. You would be giving them Expertise on all Int and Wisdom checks pertaining to the natural world. I wouldn’t mind it, but people would cry over powered on that.
The problem you have with bard is competing images. What the bard was, compared to what the bard has become, compared to your image of the bard. 5e failed to naturally give bard its musical side. Song of rest is all that comes to mind off the top of my head. Look at Bard abilities in previous games and other media and you will understand their strong flavor tie to instruments. Even storytelling bards would have some musical accompaniment for their epic tales.
So the auto crit is epic and weak because it only works on the surprise round. There is no way for a player o guarantee a surprise round. That’s why they are moving away from it to something more contestant.
The problem with the whole poison thing is there aren’t many good poisons officially in the game and you end up in a mother may I situation with you DM about what poisons you have materials to make or can find to purchase. They want to move away from that set up. You make the 13th level ability Master of Poisons: and have you create amber of listed poisons each time you finish a long rest. Set up like the Alchemist Artificer’s ability to make special potions.
I think limiting things to the first round of combat is bad design. What if you can’t get in range on the first round of combat. Half the things that make you special are gone.
I think for the most part I agree with you on all points, and that I prefer our other fellow's version of working with poison (plus your tweaks) than I do what we have. Except for the bard's purpose... But I also think it's just quibbling over smaller points at this stage.
i honestly think that if they want to get rid of abilities that are niche and require some form of dm fiat the whole assassin class is basically dead, as it gets to powerful if it is reliable in all contexts and too weak at its fiction if it gets “adjusted” in power to fit a reliable interpretation.
Going the reliable route makes me seriously worried for the whole game though, as it gives me terrible 4th edition vibes. A game that felt like a mmo computer game - very balanced and very booring.
I’m pretty sure we aren’t going 4e route yet since fighters didn’t get a big enough overhaul for that. What they are trying to do is make sure everyone playing an assassin is getting a similar experience. In current 5e two people at different tables could have completely different views on the Assassin because of at table experience. On DM constantly let’s the party have surprise while the other doesn’t. One DM lets his rogue make up home brew poisons and the other doesn’t and doesn’t give him easy access to the poisons in the DMG (which honestly aren’t that great and unique). They want to move away from DM fiat as you call it. That doesn’t mean the mother may I will be completely erased, but your experience with the class and it’s features shouldn’t be based upon the DM giving you more surprise rounds than and poisons and home brew poisons.
I'm starting to realize that the Assassin is one of the most table-dependent subclasses in the game. All of their infiltration/espionage-based Subclass features are only valuable 1.) If the DM is creating scenarios that specifically give time and access to the tools needed to use your subclass features and 2.) If the DM doesn't allow other players to attempt the same thing without specifically having a subclass feature for it. The reason the Auto-Crit is so demanded by long-term Assassin players is because it is the ONLY good feature the subclass had originally. And speaking of, it's so good that the subclass is still very popular despite how bad the rest of it is. I've already said that my ideal solution would be to make the auto-crit a limited use, higher level feature, but I definitely think that, of all the Rogue Subclasses, Assassin probably most needed a full, top to bottom restructure. It's just a badly designed subclass that has only avoided the reputation of stuff like the Purple Dragon Knight, 4 Elements Monk, or the original Beastmaster Ranger by virtue of having a Cool Name and for having an easily exploitable 3rd level feature.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I'm all for removing a lot of the DM dependency for the reasons you state, and I'm not wanting anything like an MMO experience, but on the other hand, OneDnD seems like its trying to push in that direction, mostly because the rogue isn't the only class getting the video game treatment. A lot of spells are getting standardized, every creature and player has a "creature type", etc.
ALL rogues are like that except for the swashbuckler because its specialty is one on one melee.