So at level 3 a Rogue can choose the assassain path. When he does he gets an ability that gives him advantage against any enemy whose initiative is lower than his.
However, I beleive the exception I'm about to describe is "RAW Compliant". The exception I wish to use to nerf the assassain rogue is to say that he does not get advantage even when his initiative is higher than an enemies IF he does not have his weapons already drawn before combat.
This makes sense because a rogue that already has his weapons drawn is much more prepared for danger and can react to it quicker than one who does not. This is my basis for the ruling that he must have his weapons pre drawn.
Would imposing this ruling go against RAW? I mean the feature doesn't say you get advantage "everytime you win initiative" right?
Why the heck would you want to nerf the Rogue? That's about the last class in this game that needs nerfing.
FrogReaver wrote:
Novacat wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
imo the only thing to be careful of with rogues is being too generous with hiding/adv on attacks rules. But obviously this is a table by table preference which will be reflected in DM rulings.
Novacat wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
There is a common concept in some of the OP's recent posts:
and this one.
Simple answer: if RAW was going to explicitly and irrefutably cover every possible aspect of game play, including all the exceptions or variations of the rules, it would be a series of volumes, rather than a single handbook of guidelines. More like law, than RAW. Because something is not explicitly ruled out doesn't make it OK, though.
FrogReaver wrote:
RAW states the baseline, or the minimum that occurs for a specific rule. Therefore, adding the need for a drawn weapon is adding to the baseline (because it is never mentioned). You are adding a house rule. A DM may add as many house rules as they like. However, it is in the tables best interest to be clear about those house rules at the very beginning of the game (under most circumstances). If you just add house rules at random points in the game that have a major impact on any given class, then don't be surprised if the player challenges it, or is not happy and wants to play a different class.
Also, you are equating weapons with being able to make an attack.
The rogue will always be able to make an attack, even without weapons, as unarmed strike is an attack roll.
Also, you are equating weapons with being able to make an attack.
The rogue will always be able to make an attack, even without weapons, as unarmed strike is an attack roll.
FrogReaver wrote:
The rules simply state that a rogue has advantage on any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. That's the only requirement that has to be met in order to grant advantage to the rogue.
If the rogue does not have a weapon drawn and cannot draw a weapon, the rogue still has advantage against the creature when attacking with an unarmed strike.
If the rogue does not have a weapon drawn and can draw a weapon, they may, per RAW, use their one free object interaction to draw their weapon before making an attack.
Or if the rogue does or does not have a weapon but wants to use their free object interaction to pick up an improvised weapon, they would have advantage with that attack as well, as long as the creature has not taken a turn yet in combat.
The rogue even has advantage on that target even if the rogue attacks another target. Advantage isn't dependent on declaring an attack action.
Either way, the rogue has advantage if the creature being attacked has not taken a turn in the combat yet, either from a lower initiative in the first round of combat or surprise.
Bloodscythe wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
This is like saying "Any time a Rogue uses Suprise Attack the Gods cast Faerie Fire on him." It's not against RAW because, well, nothing in the PHB says that doesn't happen. Right?
And like the first poster said, why the heck would you want to nerf rogues? Nerf Fighters or Paladins or Barbarians or something.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
OP:
Unless you have a piece-of-tofu player, you will get to use that exception exactly once.
After you nerf his fun, every time thereafter when the Rogue/Assassin sets up an ambush, an intelligent player will say to you and the table, "I draw my weapons and settle in to wait."
And if it were me, I would be talking (behind your back) with the other players to see if they feel like they are getting arbitrarily nerfed by unmentioned details.
Please quit behaving like a sleazy state-provided defence attorney for the clearly guilty - trying to bend the letter of the law to abrogate its spirit.
Your players will eventually decide that having you as DM is no fun, and wander away from your group.
BRJN wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Depends if you view adding a requirement that isn't in the rules as RAW or not.
Technically you could rule that assassins can only get the benefit if they're wearing pants. Because they're obviously not prepared for danger if they're not wearing pants.
And you always have Advantage against an enemy who's pants are down.
An assassin who draws their concealed weapon in a split second to strike at their unsuspecting foes is a common trope.
Similarly western culture has an fear of assassins striking when your pants are down.
as everyone else has said, having weapons in your hand has no bearing on your preparedness or reaction ability in a given situation. what if the point of rolling initiative in an encounter was to see who could get to some button or item before another person? would someone with knives in their hand automatically win in that situation? it's obvious that the answer is no and that your thinking is silly and counter to all sense of logic.
i'm betting you're some grouchy DM who's getting sick of taking sneak attack damage automatically and wants to vent your frustration on the players by screwing with their class features.
Illithidbix wrote:
trebor_rjf wrote:
Sorry if this was mentioned before. I just breezed through the thread.
In a turn, player can move action, do an incidental action as part of the move, and attack.
This means player can draw 1 weapon, move and attack on his or her initiative count. If rogue assassin can gain advantage on his initiative count when he acts prior to when a foe acts for the first time, I think it is pretty clear that the assassin can gain the benefit even when having to draw a weapon.
If the assassin wants to draw 2 weapons he/she'd have to have the duel wielder feat to be able to do that as an incidental action.
FrogReaver wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Illithidbix wrote:
danyc wrote:
Lol this thread reminded me of a work conversation I had today...
Someone said something about being afraid of being eaten by an orca(killer whale), in response to the story about the Sea World orca that killed a handler a while back. I pointed out that orca's do not eat people and have only extremely rarely attacked them at all. I pointed out that there is no documented example of an orca ever eating a human and a different person said 'well it could have happened and we just don't know about it!'
So my reply was 'true...it IS possible an orca time traveled back in time and killed and ate someone that was worse than Hitler, thus causing our current history...but in general I take the liberty of asuming that didn't happen.'
I mean I suppose if you starved an orca half to death, and stuffed a person into a seal-shaped bulbber soaked body condom then dumped a bunch of herring oil in the water to cover up the 'stink' it COULD maybe possibly happen, but seriously.
But I digress!
What if the rogue state's that his weapon is his sharp intellect and witty banter...can he still have advantage with it when he has surprise? I guess those things aren't technically finesse weapons 
Then again, social interactions DO require a certain amount if finesse!
What if the person the Rogue is stabbing in the spleen decides right before he gets hit that HE owns the rogues weapon? The rogue is sort of giving him the weapon right? Then it's not the rogue's weapon any more! No advantage!