I built this to level 20 (does anyone really ever get to play lvl 20 characters???) rogue 5, ranger 3, monk 12
The features I thought might work in an interesting way were the hunter's mark, crits from surprise, sneak attacks, multiple attacks-flurry of blows from invisibility and teleporting.
Do you think I would be better off limiting it to two classes?? I even think I might struggle trying to keep track of all this stuff (like I would get to play it at 20)
Just remember with an assassin build, in order to get surprise, all players need to succeed a stealth check. Also, action surge goes really well with dread ambusher. And you can't flurry of blows on the same turn you use Hunter's mark.
I think you are combining 2 different assassin builds (shadow monk assassin and gloom stalker assassin), and they are negating some features of the other.
My DM ran a one shot at level 20. I kept my character simple, Level 2 Rogue with Level 18 Shadow Monk.
The expertise in Insight from Level 1 Rogue, and the Cunning feature from Level 2 Rogue were a nice enhancement. Use of cunning to disengage without the loss of ki I found beneficial.
Thanks, I was concerned that there was going to diminishing returns in the overlap. In theory I would be casting Hunter's mark the turn before. From the assassin 'all attacks (plural) that hit are crits while target is surprised' -- to me that would only be one attack, but I see Nova builds where all the hits from the turn are crits so...
The surprised condition requires combat to start before the enemy even knows the party is there. If you cast Hunter's mark that will either give away your position or be the "roll initiative" moment, and either way is not a reliable plan in the build.
The biggest issue with any assassin nova build is that it requires the party to cooperate. Surprise requires the entire party to succeed a stealth check. If you have a paladin or fighter in plate, you are not likely to surprise anything.
I didn't realize that about Hunter's Mark. The spell just says you mystically mark something. Doesn't say that it is visible or makes noise or that it puts you in combat. I had the idea that it could be done without the quarry knowing. Same with Hex.
I didn't realize that about Hunter's Mark. The spell just says you mystically mark something. Doesn't say that it is visible or makes noise or that it puts you in combat. I had the idea that it could be done without the quarry knowing. Same with Hex.
You can move them to a new target without any visible effects. You can't cast them without the listed components, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Both spells require verbal components, which will give away your position if within hearing range. (Don't ask me how far that is, I just spent 10 minutes looking it up and found nothing. DM call.)
You have a lot of competition for your bonus action. You took two-weapon fighting, monk gives you martial arts/flurry of blows, rogue allows cunning actions, and you also have to consider casting hunter's mark.
On a related note, it probably won't be much of an issue with two attacks, but if you use flurry, you have to attack unarmed, which means no sneak attack.
You've basically combined a bunch of options in a way that you dont have the resources to use all of those options, and it results in an unoptimized build. You can stick with this build and have multiple ways of fighting but:
To optimize assassination, go gloom stalker assassin.
To optimize stealth and mobility, go way of shadow gloom stalker.
To be a ninja roleplay, either see the previous or go way of shadow assassin.
You have a lot of competition for your bonus action. You took two-weapon fighting, monk gives you martial arts/flurry of blows, rogue allows cunning actions, and you also have to consider casting hunter's mark.
On a related note, it probably won't be much of an issue with two attacks, but if you use flurry, you have to attack unarmed, which means no sneak attack.
I thought about that but considered monk attacks as magical or hands as weapons but that could definitely put a wrench in things.
You have a lot of competition for your bonus action. You took two-weapon fighting, monk gives you martial arts/flurry of blows, rogue allows cunning actions, and you also have to consider casting hunter's mark.
On a related note, it probably won't be much of an issue with two attacks, but if you use flurry, you have to attack unarmed, which means no sneak attack.
I thought about that but considered monk attacks as magical or hands as weapons but that could definitely put a wrench in things.
A monk's unarmed strikes can use Strength or Dexterity. That does not mean that they have the finesse property, even though that's its only listed effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
The surprised condition requires combat to start before the enemy even knows the party is there. If you cast Hunter's mark that will either give away your position or be the "roll initiative" moment, and either way is not a reliable plan in the build.
The biggest issue with any assassin nova build is that it requires the party to cooperate. Surprise requires the entire party to succeed a stealth check. If you have a paladin or fighter in plate, you are not likely to surprise anything.
It does depend on how the DM rules on that aspect. There are rules for group checks where the group passes if the majority pass. I don't have my PHB to find the reference, but it's in the ability checks section. If the DM rules that stealth could be included in that category, it's not an all or nothing thing. Otherwise, DxJxC is correct that it'll be difficult without leaving the less stealthy behind a turn.
The surprised condition requires combat to start before the enemy even knows the party is there. If you cast Hunter's mark that will either give away your position or be the "roll initiative" moment, and either way is not a reliable plan in the build.
The biggest issue with any assassin nova build is that it requires the party to cooperate. Surprise requires the entire party to succeed a stealth check. If you have a paladin or fighter in plate, you are not likely to surprise anything.
It does depend on how the DM rules on that aspect. There are rules for group checks where the group passes if the majority pass. I don't have my PHB to find the reference, but it's in the ability checks section. If the DM rules that stealth could be included in that category, it's not an all or nothing thing. Otherwise, DxJxC is correct that it'll be difficult without leaving the less stealthy behind a turn.
The surprised condition requires combat to start before the enemy even knows the party is there. If you cast Hunter's mark that will either give away your position or be the "roll initiative" moment, and either way is not a reliable plan in the build.
The biggest issue with any assassin nova build is that it requires the party to cooperate. Surprise requires the entire party to succeed a stealth check. If you have a paladin or fighter in plate, you are not likely to surprise anything.
It does depend on how the DM rules on that aspect. There are rules for group checks where the group passes if the majority pass. I don't have my PHB to find the reference, but it's in the ability checks section. If the DM rules that stealth could be included in that category, it's not an all or nothing thing. Otherwise, DxJxC is correct that it'll be difficult without leaving the less stealthy behind a turn.
Which is fine and does nothing to negate the possibility of the group check. According to the SRD, it's from Chapter 7. Here's the part:
Group Checks
When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. In such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren't.
To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds.
Otherwise, the group fails. Group checks don't come up very often, and they're most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group. For example, when adventurers are navigating a swamp, the DM might call for a group Wisdom (Survival) check to see if the characters can avoid the quicksand, sinkholes, and other natural hazards of the environment. If at least half the group succeeds, the successful characters are able to guide their companions out of danger. Otherwise, the group stumbles into one of these hazards.
If the DM chooses to use a group check instead of individual checks (particularly if the party says that they are trying to cover for the less stealthy members), half the party would have to succeed to pass the skill check. Some of it might depend on what measures the stealthy characters are taking to help cover for the less stealthy.
The noise of the armor is a concern. Since many heavier armor sets have disadvantage, you could say that one die represents the armor noise while the other represents avoiding twigs or bumping into things or the like. If the armor roll fails, the group check doesn't matter. If the stealth roll fails, the party can cover for it.
But that only works if the DM considers stealth to be a possibility with group checks. Nothing under surprise tells me it has to be an case by case, but I could see how others might see it as such.
Group checks really only apply to tasks where the rest of the party can make up for a failure. Like someone can see something for a blind person, but ninjas can't sneak a raid siren within 90 feet of a creature.
Group checks really only apply to tasks where the rest of the party can make up for a failure. Like someone can see something for a blind person, but ninjas can't sneak a raid siren within 90 feet of a creature.
The good news is that even heavy plate isn't a raid siren. In the early going, there will be opportunities for a -1 to stealth + disadvantage to succeed on stealth checks at a reasonable (not good or even ok) rate of 30.25% against goblins by themselves (passive perception of 9 plus 1 because of the -1 to stealth). As long as both rolls are at least a 10, success! That doesn't speak of a raid siren to me. To me the group check would involve the stealthy person giving cues to the non stealthy person about when to go and when to stop. They would help the "raid siren" to pick a path that would be quieter than they would normally choose. It's conceivable that they could concoct a method to reduce armor noise, but that could just open up a can of worms that would be better left closed, ergo my suggestion that the non stealthy character designate one of the rolls that they would make with disadvantage to be a normal stealth roll and one to be an armor noise roll. If the group check succeeds but an armor noise roll fails, the group check would still fail. It cuts a middle ground between you fail with the sturdier characters and roll group checks to cancel out the disadvantage. The option of leaving behind the heavy armor PCs still increases the likelihood of success with group checks, particularly when you get higher passive perception scores. A 16 passive perception score (such as with the Githzerai Zerth) means the 3/10 chance of succeeding drops to a 1/25 (4%) chance, which is basically an autofail. And a Storm Giant (19 passive perception), forget about it (1% chance).
I don't know what the rules were about stealth and surprise were in other editions of D&D, but I definitely don't see anything that says that a group check is completely out of bounds for stealth, outside of ideas about either RAI or preconceived notions that have been carried forward from previous editions. Tack on the failure on the group check on an armor noise check, and I definitely don't see any possible way that could be argued against it outside of DM fiat.
You have a lot of competition for your bonus action. You took two-weapon fighting, monk gives you martial arts/flurry of blows, rogue allows cunning actions, and you also have to consider casting hunter's mark.
On a related note, it probably won't be much of an issue with two attacks, but if you use flurry, you have to attack unarmed, which means no sneak attack.
This is 100% false. When you take the bonus action attack from Martial Arts (no ki) or Flurry of Blows (1 ki), those attacks are unarmed. However, in order to qualify for the bonus action, you must first take the Attack action, and the attack(s) from this can be done either unarmed or with a monk weapon. Dagger & Shortsword are monk weapons with the Finesse property.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
https://ddb.ac/characters/12221605/UkdpWv
I built this to level 20 (does anyone really ever get to play lvl 20 characters???) rogue 5, ranger 3, monk 12
The features I thought might work in an interesting way were the hunter's mark, crits from surprise, sneak attacks, multiple attacks-flurry of blows from invisibility and teleporting.
Do you think I would be better off limiting it to two classes?? I even think I might struggle trying to keep track of all this stuff (like I would get to play it at 20)
I took Mobile and Alert and ASI, ASI
Just remember with an assassin build, in order to get surprise, all players need to succeed a stealth check. Also, action surge goes really well with dread ambusher. And you can't flurry of blows on the same turn you use Hunter's mark.
I think you are combining 2 different assassin builds (shadow monk assassin and gloom stalker assassin), and they are negating some features of the other.
My DM ran a one shot at level 20. I kept my character simple, Level 2 Rogue with Level 18 Shadow Monk.
The expertise in Insight from Level 1 Rogue, and the Cunning feature from Level 2 Rogue were a nice enhancement. Use of cunning to disengage without the loss of ki I found beneficial.
Thanks, I was concerned that there was going to diminishing returns in the overlap. In theory I would be casting Hunter's mark the turn before. From the assassin 'all attacks (plural) that hit are crits while target is surprised' -- to me that would only be one attack, but I see Nova builds where all the hits from the turn are crits so...
The surprised condition requires combat to start before the enemy even knows the party is there. If you cast Hunter's mark that will either give away your position or be the "roll initiative" moment, and either way is not a reliable plan in the build.
The biggest issue with any assassin nova build is that it requires the party to cooperate. Surprise requires the entire party to succeed a stealth check. If you have a paladin or fighter in plate, you are not likely to surprise anything.
I didn't realize that about Hunter's Mark. The spell just says you mystically mark something. Doesn't say that it is visible or makes noise or that it puts you in combat. I had the idea that it could be done without the quarry knowing. Same with Hex.
You can move them to a new target without any visible effects. You can't cast them without the listed components, though.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Both spells require verbal components, which will give away your position if within hearing range. (Don't ask me how far that is, I just spent 10 minutes looking it up and found nothing. DM call.)
You have a lot of competition for your bonus action. You took two-weapon fighting, monk gives you martial arts/flurry of blows, rogue allows cunning actions, and you also have to consider casting hunter's mark.
On a related note, it probably won't be much of an issue with two attacks, but if you use flurry, you have to attack unarmed, which means no sneak attack.
You've basically combined a bunch of options in a way that you dont have the resources to use all of those options, and it results in an unoptimized build. You can stick with this build and have multiple ways of fighting but:
I thought about that but considered monk attacks as magical or hands as weapons but that could definitely put a wrench in things.
A monk's unarmed strikes can use Strength or Dexterity. That does not mean that they have the finesse property, even though that's its only listed effect.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
It does depend on how the DM rules on that aspect. There are rules for group checks where the group passes if the majority pass. I don't have my PHB to find the reference, but it's in the ability checks section. If the DM rules that stealth could be included in that category, it's not an all or nothing thing. Otherwise, DxJxC is correct that it'll be difficult without leaving the less stealthy behind a turn.
It is in the surprise rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#TheOrderofCombat
Which is fine and does nothing to negate the possibility of the group check. According to the SRD, it's from Chapter 7. Here's the part:
Group Checks
When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. In such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren't.
To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds.
Otherwise, the group fails. Group checks don't come up very often, and they're most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group. For example, when adventurers are navigating a swamp, the DM might call for a group Wisdom (Survival) check to see if the characters can avoid the quicksand, sinkholes, and other natural hazards of the environment. If at least half the group succeeds, the successful characters are able to guide their companions out of danger. Otherwise, the group stumbles into one of these hazards.
If the DM chooses to use a group check instead of individual checks (particularly if the party says that they are trying to cover for the less stealthy members), half the party would have to succeed to pass the skill check. Some of it might depend on what measures the stealthy characters are taking to help cover for the less stealthy.
The noise of the armor is a concern. Since many heavier armor sets have disadvantage, you could say that one die represents the armor noise while the other represents avoiding twigs or bumping into things or the like. If the armor roll fails, the group check doesn't matter. If the stealth roll fails, the party can cover for it.
But that only works if the DM considers stealth to be a possibility with group checks. Nothing under surprise tells me it has to be an case by case, but I could see how others might see it as such.
Group checks really only apply to tasks where the rest of the party can make up for a failure. Like someone can see something for a blind person, but ninjas can't sneak a raid siren within 90 feet of a creature.
The good news is that even heavy plate isn't a raid siren. In the early going, there will be opportunities for a -1 to stealth + disadvantage to succeed on stealth checks at a reasonable (not good or even ok) rate of 30.25% against goblins by themselves (passive perception of 9 plus 1 because of the -1 to stealth). As long as both rolls are at least a 10, success! That doesn't speak of a raid siren to me. To me the group check would involve the stealthy person giving cues to the non stealthy person about when to go and when to stop. They would help the "raid siren" to pick a path that would be quieter than they would normally choose. It's conceivable that they could concoct a method to reduce armor noise, but that could just open up a can of worms that would be better left closed, ergo my suggestion that the non stealthy character designate one of the rolls that they would make with disadvantage to be a normal stealth roll and one to be an armor noise roll. If the group check succeeds but an armor noise roll fails, the group check would still fail. It cuts a middle ground between you fail with the sturdier characters and roll group checks to cancel out the disadvantage. The option of leaving behind the heavy armor PCs still increases the likelihood of success with group checks, particularly when you get higher passive perception scores. A 16 passive perception score (such as with the Githzerai Zerth) means the 3/10 chance of succeeding drops to a 1/25 (4%) chance, which is basically an autofail. And a Storm Giant (19 passive perception), forget about it (1% chance).
I don't know what the rules were about stealth and surprise were in other editions of D&D, but I definitely don't see anything that says that a group check is completely out of bounds for stealth, outside of ideas about either RAI or preconceived notions that have been carried forward from previous editions. Tack on the failure on the group check on an armor noise check, and I definitely don't see any possible way that could be argued against it outside of DM fiat.
This is 100% false. When you take the bonus action attack from Martial Arts (no ki) or Flurry of Blows (1 ki), those attacks are unarmed. However, in order to qualify for the bonus action, you must first take the Attack action, and the attack(s) from this can be done either unarmed or with a monk weapon. Dagger & Shortsword are monk weapons with the Finesse property.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think they werw specifically talking about the flurry of blows attacks, not the attack action attacks.