Drunken master (monk / assassin)

[Critical Fumble]

We are about to finish up our 1e Rise of the Runelords campaign, and after that we're going to launch our first 2e campaign. I'm doing a little theorycrafting with a new character, but since I'm not yet experienced with 2e I don't know how good this build might be.

I saw a couple posts about using the monk base and stumbling stance, coupled with the assassin archetype, to make a pretty good "drunken master" build. It sounded fun, so I've been tinkering.

I'm starting with a versatile human and Dex 18, Str 14, and Cha 14. Starting feats are stumbling stance, ki strike (from Natural Ambition), and Toughness.

At level 2 I can take the assassin dedication for the additional feinting bonuses and to better benefit from imposing the flat-footed condition.

Then as follows:

4. Expert backstabber
6. Stumbling feint
8. Sneak attacker
10. Wholeness of body

This seems fairly strong to me, but admittedly I don't have a feel for the number ranges. I understand that getting +1 is a bigger deal in 2e. With this combo, I get bonuses to feinting, free attempts to feint, and extra benefits from catching an opponent flat-footed.

At level 8 (without equipment), he'd be +1 to feint base and +3 to feint vs. an opponent who is marked for death. And if flat-footed, he'd be getting +2 flat damage and +1d6 from sneak attack. It appears that he'd have a lot of opportunities to feint (including for free with stumbling feint) and plenty of bonuses for doing so.

I'd appreciate feedback from those of you who are more familiar with the system (most of you), especially if you've played a monk. Am I on the right track?

Thanks!

[shroudb]

a small nitpick is that you own't be +3 vs marked tarets but +2, both Stumbling stance and the Assasin offer circumstance bonuses so they wouldn't stack.

as far as ai can tell with a quick glimple it seem ok, you are forgoeing a lot of feats for straigt up damage boosts, which may or may not come bitting you in the back since feats are a great way to diversify your options rather than putting all your eggs in one basket.

I particularly don't like "expert backstabber" paying a whole feat for essentially +1 to damage.

as an example, instead of that +1 to damage you could have the wholeness of body on level 4 and pick wind jump at 10 which is essentially in-combat flying.

Even stunning fist, giving you free stun attempts everytime you hit even 1 strike is worth more than +1 damage imo.

[lemeres]

You could go with bard- it seems thematically appropriate since you use acting and deception to manipulate your opponents into underestimating you.

It also gives you straight +1s to attack (possibly more if you go the maestro route) and a bit of flat damage. Flurry is a good combo with the bard style because it has good action economy.

Interestingly, monks can have native occult spell DCs, so you could use that to get slightly better number progression than seen from a multiclass. Even if you don't take later multiclass feats for spells, your current ones will still have a scaling DC.

[Perpdepog]

If I remember rightly from poking around, rogue with either the Martial Artist archetype or multiclassing into monk can pull this off pretty wel too.

[Critical Fumble]

shroudb wrote:

a small nitpick is that you own't be +3 vs marked tarets but +2, both Stumbling stance and the Assasin offer circumstance bonuses so they wouldn't stack.

Thanks for that catch. That's a downer though.

shroudb wrote:

I particularly don't like "expert backstabber" paying a whole feat for essentially +1 to damage.

Understood, but isn't a consistent +1 to damage a lot in this game? In a world where the best you'll get from a magic item is +3, isn't +1 pretty good (especially when it increases to +2 more when your handwraps become +3)?

But I understand that there is an opportunity cost and that the monk has a lot of other flavorful feats out there.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Critical Fumble]

Perpdepog wrote:

If I remember rightly from poking around, rogue with either the Martial Artist archetype or multiclassing into monk can pull this off pretty wel too.

Yes, I considered this too. I think that Monk/Assassin is more combat-capable than Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Martial Artist though.

Starting with Rogue gets you more skills and better sneak attack, but less AC due to the loss of unarmored expertise. You also don't get flurry of blows until lvl 10 at the earliest.

I suppose if the group needed the skills then it would be better to start with Rogue.

Plus, my concept is the "drunken master." If I start in Monk, I get to start with that concept at lvl 1. If I start with Rogue, I don't get stumbling stance until lvl 4. It delays the concept.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Critical Fumble wrote:

...

shroudb wrote:

I particularly don't like "expert backstabber" paying a whole feat for essentially +1 to damage.

Understood, but isn't a consistent +1 to damage a lot in this game? In a world where the best you'll get from a magic item is +3, isn't +1 pretty good (especially when it increases to +2 more when your handwraps become +3)?

...

+1 to attack rolls is huge.

+1 to damage rolls really isn't.
And you don't get flat bonuses to damage from magic weapons, you get extra damage dice. So the basic Striking Rune on your handwraps will probably add 1d8 damage to your attack (assuming you are using the 'Stumbling Swing' attack given by stumbling stance).

[Perpdepog]

Critical Fumble wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

If I remember rightly from poking around, rogue with either the Martial Artist archetype or multiclassing into monk can pull this off pretty wel too.

Yes, I considered this too. I think that Monk/Assassin is more combat-capable than Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Martial Artist though.

Starting with Rogue gets you more skills and better sneak attack, but less AC due to the loss of unarmored expertise. You also don't get flurry of blows until lvl 10 at the earliest.

I suppose if the group needed the skills then it would be better to start with Rogue.

Plus, my concept is the "drunken master." If I start in Monk, I get to start with that concept at lvl 1. If I start with Rogue, I don't get stumbling stance until lvl 4. It delays the concept.

You'd also out-damage the monk by a fairly handy margin with your Sneak Attacks, since you'd be able to flurry them.

The AC is a bit less of an issue because you'd also be wearing armor so you can get to that +5, not counting runes, more quickly than a monk can.
Definitely agree with it not fitting concept though, and IMO that'd be my biggest reason with going with a monk, too. I mean you're going to have fun either way, so may as well pick the one that gives you more fun sooner, yeah?

[shroudb]

Perpdepog wrote:

Critical Fumble wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

If I remember rightly from poking around, rogue with either the Martial Artist archetype or multiclassing into monk can pull this off pretty wel too.

Yes, I considered this too. I think that Monk/Assassin is more combat-capable than Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Martial Artist though.

Starting with Rogue gets you more skills and better sneak attack, but less AC due to the loss of unarmored expertise. You also don't get flurry of blows until lvl 10 at the earliest.

I suppose if the group needed the skills then it would be better to start with Rogue.

Plus, my concept is the "drunken master." If I start in Monk, I get to start with that concept at lvl 1. If I start with Rogue, I don't get stumbling stance until lvl 4. It delays the concept.

You'd also out-damage the monk by a fairly handy margin with your Sneak Attacks, since you'd be able to flurry them.

The AC is a bit less of an issue because you'd also be wearing armor so you can get to that +5, not counting runes, more quickly than a monk can.
Definitely agree with it not fitting concept though, and IMO that'd be my biggest reason with going with a monk, too. I mean you're going to have fun either way, so may as well pick the one that gives you more fun sooner, yeah?

well sure... after level 12 though, since flurry is at level 10 and to get stumbling strike as a monk MC he would need level 12.

That's more than half of his career without doing the "thing" he wanted in his OP.

[Perpdepog]

shroudb wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

Critical Fumble wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

If I remember rightly from poking around, rogue with either the Martial Artist archetype or multiclassing into monk can pull this off pretty wel too.

Yes, I considered this too. I think that Monk/Assassin is more combat-capable than Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Martial Artist though.

Starting with Rogue gets you more skills and better sneak attack, but less AC due to the loss of unarmored expertise. You also don't get flurry of blows until lvl 10 at the earliest.

I suppose if the group needed the skills then it would be better to start with Rogue.

Plus, my concept is the "drunken master." If I start in Monk, I get to start with that concept at lvl 1. If I start with Rogue, I don't get stumbling stance until lvl 4. It delays the concept.

You'd also out-damage the monk by a fairly handy margin with your Sneak Attacks, since you'd be able to flurry them.

The AC is a bit less of an issue because you'd also be wearing armor so you can get to that +5, not counting runes, more quickly than a monk can.
Definitely agree with it not fitting concept though, and IMO that'd be my biggest reason with going with a monk, too. I mean you're going to have fun either way, so may as well pick the one that gives you more fun sooner, yeah?

well sure... after level 12 though, since flurry is at level 10 and to get stumbling strike as a monk MC he would need level 12.

That's more than half of his career without doing the "thing" he wanted in his OP.

Which is why I conceded that the third point, the one in favor of their build, was the most important and compelling reason for doing it the way they wanted to.

[shroudb]

oups, sorry, didn't see that last line ^^

[Critical Fumble]

Thank you all for the good suggestions.

Point taken regarding Expert Backstabber. That lets me move up Wholeness of Body, which I agree is a better feat.

I think I want to start with Monk and then move to Assassin. That lets me fulfill my character concept the earliest. That gives me this progression:

1. Stumbling Stance, Ki Strike (from Natural Ambition)
2. Assassin Dedication
4. Wholeness of Body
6. Stumbling Feint
8. Sneak Attacker

But this leads me to question whether the Assassin Dedication is even worth it? I'm trying to maximize the benefit of feint and the flat-footed condition. Marked for Death makes me slightly better at feinting (at the cost of three actions; and it's only an extra +1 to feint, not +2 like I earlier thought because they don't stack), and it gives me access to Sneak Attacker and Expert Backstabber (which most seem to agree is not worth the feat).

So would it be better to just stay straight Monk, or to take the Rogue Dedication instead?

Rogue Dedication gives me access to Sneak Attacker like Assassin does, plus it gives me two skills, a skill feat, and Surprise Attack. That seems better to me than Marked for Death--if we continue to assume that Expert Backstabber isn't worth it, then that's all that Assassin gives you that Rogue doesn't.

I wasn't going to take the Assassinate feat at 12 because that didn't really fit my character concept anyway.

So it looks to me that Monk/Rogue would be better. Right? Any other ways you can recommend to make the best use of feint/flat-footed?

Thanks everyone!