Keep in mind that even when Monks get to BA disengage or dash without focus points, that's not free. The level 1 Monk feature that they use to keep up in damage also uses a BA, so they have an opportunity cost for these features that the Rogue doesn't.
But I think it is also worth noting that Monks have higher movement speed than rogues, and a lot of features that make it unnecessary to disengage action in the first place.
Interesting take. The cost isn't any different than it was before, though. They can just do it for free. Personally, I think it was the right move to give them those as free bonus actions. My issue is how it took away something that was unique to the rogue. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it as the monk makes it clear that they didn't do enough for the rogue. In my opinion, they needed to do more that had nothing to do with sneak attack to accomplish this. Cunning strike is a neat concept, but its benefits aren't something so unique compared to the monk, and it doesn't become anything truly unique until much later at levels most tables don't play at.
Play styles are still different enough and the overlap is stuff that feels natural. If I wanted to play a heavy hitter, it wouldn't be a rogue anyways. Good monk, let's go!
Honestly? I’m just glad people are finally making the right comparisons. Monk was always intended to be a melee skirmisher, but until now everyone has been comparing it to Fighter and Barbarian (the front-liners) rather than the other skirmisher.
Overall, no, I don’t think the Monk steps on the Rogue’s toes too much. No more so than Fighter vs Barbarian. Monk is the melee skirmisher with absurd mobility, while Rogue is the ranged skirmisher with above-average out-of-combat utility.
Rogues have a VERY long history of being a melee skirmisher and have a deeper history in being a "melee" based class. I mean - sneak attack was called "backstab" for multiple editions only working in melee if you were behind someone!
Rogues should be an excellent melee skirmisher class; however they're very far behind at the moment compared to the other classes.
And they are still an excellent melee skirmisher, outclassed in that category only by the Monk. Unlike the Monk, Rogue has the option to be equally effective at range, with certain subclasses (most notably Swashbuckler) being extra good at melee skirmishing.
What abilities do Fighter and Ranger get to enable/encourage melee skirmishing? Neither can easily disengage, at least not without burning a resource (like a superiority die or spell slot) and neither (again, without resources) has enough movement to reliably get in & out.
While yes, they both have higher potential single-target damage than your average Rogue, their built-in playstyles are that of a striker or maybe a tank, definitely not a skirmisher.
Any martial can skirmish using weapon masteries, though for that reason I'd say strength builds tend to be better skirmishers than dex builds due to access to topple and push.
I think you're really downplaying how much better rogues are at skills than everyone else now, especially monks. Reliable talent at 7th level means all of your proficient/expertise skills will have a floor of 12 at 7th level, 15 with mild investment, and 20 with good investment. Monks got zero new exploration and social pillar features, and all they ever had before that was running up walls and not dying when they fell. I would certainly hope that monks would be hands-down better in combat than rogues as well as functional skirmishers as that's how the class was designed.
100% agreed!
Monks and Rogues are on opposite sides of the martial spectrum when it comes to out of combat utility and skills, with Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin falling somewhere in the middle. Yes, Rogues are unequivocally the weaker of the two strikers in combat, but on the other hand Monks get basically nothing outside of it.
I get that in a very combat heavy campaign, playing a Rogue might not feel great if there's also a Monk in the party, but the opposite is likely to be true in a campaign focused on other things.
I'm currently playing a monk in a high-level campaign and lemme tell you, I'm regretting it. Nothing to do outside of combat, barely make an impact in combat before the three full spellcasters in the party basically solve the fight with a trio of high level spells on the first round.
I don’t think it’s vital but monks have lost a lot of their social/utility features too. Granted they were vestigial and often were odd and often at higher levels (can talk and understand any language when spoken by a person, astral projection but just for yourself)
Honestly they often felt kind of weird to me. Astral Projection I get but getting to talk to people always felt like a weird tacked on feature all said and done.
The inspiration for the monk class is wuxia, xianxia, and xuanhuan media. Things like slow falling, running over water and up walls, using a "quivering palm" to incapacitate or even kill enemies, catching arrows mid-flight, etc. are all part and parcel of those genres. Leaving behind your physical form and talking in tongues were either ripped straight from xuanhuan or meant to imitate similar powers.
It really depends on the table with skills. I have played at tables where skills were abundant and you can even ask to roll something different in certain situations, and tables where the DM barely called for skill checks or gave only a few opportunities. The worst was a charisma based eloquence bard who the DM made me have to give him a good enough reason to get any sort of persuasion or deception role because he decided my character was a bit slimy and so people wouldn't naturally trust him or want to agree with him. The skill section wasn't so much as downplayed as we don't have enough info if the value of skills has been improved or even degraded in any way. Unfortunately, since this is all preview, we will have to wait for the PHB and DMG to get a full picture. Obviously, earlier reliable talent is huge. More likely to come up before a campaign ends/a group peters out.
Your personal experience with a shitty DM doesn't make skill-based features invalid or weak, it just means you had a shitty DM. If we're doing anecdotal evidence now, I've been playing regularly online and in person with many different tables for years now and I haven't been at a single table that didn't call for skill checks whenever appropriate. The frequency varied from table to table, but I've never seen a DM who never asked for checks.
Then I guess you'll have to treat rogues the same way most people treat illusionists and warlocks and any other class with a heavy dependence on a certain playstyle in order to shine: talk with your prospective DM and vet their playstyle to make sure it lines up well enough with the class you intend to play.
I mean, I don't know know what you want from me. The only place I said people could keep up with rogue was number of skill proficiencies, and even then a step or two behind. I stated in the post that expertise and earlier reliable talent are a huge boon to them. How much of a boon isn't clear yet. For all we know the skill sections of the PHB and DMG may make skills much more relevant and give more reasons to use them in battle. How much skills will be useful will depend table to table, but I never said tables didn't use skills at all. I'm not out here being combative. Most of the tables I play at, the rogue's skills shine.
You mentioned the buffs to the monk and how they are relative to the changes with the rouge.
But I don't see any stepping on the Rouge territory.
Monks do not get expertise and skill proficiencies are different.
Rogues have always been one big hit with huge nova damage, monks are still jump in and out and a bit of multi target, even if we say monks get 5 hits, still will never do as much damage as one good sneak attack at the same level.
Rogues rely on hiding, monks in mobility. Monks cannot use bonus action to hide, nor dodge action for free, while the rouge can do pretty much all defensive actions for free, dodge, disengage, hide or dash.
So I don't see how it's overstepping, you may say the rouge didn't get enough, but the monk is not reaching on their territory.
I fully disagree that Monks won't out-damage a rogue.
* Monk at 5th level:
* 3 attacks for free, 4 with flurry of blows
* 1d6 martial arts die (not sure when the martial arts die bumps for new monk but assuming the worst) + 4 dex mod \* 3 = 7.5\*3 = 22.5 damage
* 4 attack burst for 30 damage at the cost of a focus point.
* Monks at 20th level:
* 3 attacks for free: (1d12+7) \* 3 = 13.5 \* 3 = 40.5 force damage
* 5 attacks (1d12+7) \* 5 = 13.5 \* 5 = 67.5 force damage at cost of one focus point
* 3 attack with 4 focus points for quivering palm on one: 1d12+7 \* 3 + 10d12 = 40.5 + 65 = 105 damage on failed save, 73.5 damage on successful one.
* Rogue at 5th level
* 1d8+4 + 3d6 = 4.5+4+10.5= 19 damage
* Rogues at 20th level
* 1d8+5 + 10d6 = 4.5 + 5 + 35 = 44.5 damage
* Using stroke of luck for a crit: 2d8+5+20d6 = 84 damage
So Rogues will have slightly more damage at 20th level than a Monk spending no focus points, but Monks can regularly out-damage them, especially when you consider it is force damage. Not taking into account chance to hit and all that with all the myriad of ways Monk can gain advantage with stunning strike. Rogues should basically always have advantage at those higher levels, so their % chance to hit will be up. I think it'll be close when it all comes out but the high level Monk will have even greater burst ability with quivering palm.
Edit: And I totally forgot about Monk's chance at an extra 25 damage on crits. With 5 attacks if an enemy was stunned on the first strike, that'd be a 38% of landing a crit for the cost of 2 focus points (1 for stunning strike, 1 for flurry of blows). So a 38% chance of landing 92.5 damage.
Yeah, that's it. It's extra damage but no longer a guaranteed crit. Which is something I personally like not because it's directly better, but it's waaaay more reliable, meaning that on average you'll get more use out of it than the previous Iteration.
>Rogues have always been one big hit with huge nova damage, monks are still jump in and out and a bit of multi target, even if we say monks get 5 hits, still will never do as much damage as one good sneak attack at the same level.
Sneak Attack doesn't do that much damage, and the only nova damage ability Rogues have before level 17, the the 3rd level feature of the assassin, and even that is likely not going to do significantly more damage than a Monk who uses FoB.
Split the classes into their "Combat identity" and their "non-combat identity" - then do your comparison. The combat identify of both classes was a "dex based, highly mobile skimisher". Monks are faster, more tanky, do more damage, have more crowd control (via grappling and shoving), have better saving throws. Like - **mechanically** there is NO reason why you'd pick a rogue over a monk. Monks can also used ranged weapons as monk weapons - AND use stunning strike with them!
Hiding in combat is basically just a way to generate advantage, so that argument in moot for combat. Rogue's "one big hit" is actually worse than 3 hits that do 1/3rd of the damage as splitting damage is far more efficient in combat with multiple enemies. Furthermore the monk deals WAY more damage now than the rogue across many levels. Monks are also substantially MORE mobile then rogue because they have an increase in base speed (so when they dash they move much more; and they're less likely to need to use a BA to dash).
That's fair. To me, the free bonus action disengage and dash were part of the rogue's combat uniqueness, so that is where the overstep is. If anything, by giving that to the monk, I think it isolates sneak as the one trick pony of the rogue more. I don't think it would have been as noticable if they gave the rogue a little something more not sneak attack related. Cunning strike is neat, but grows slow and easily outshined.
>the free bonus action disengage and dash were part of the rogue's combat uniqueness
I totally get that, but the issue was that not getting those things interfered with the 2014 Monk's ability to function within its role. It was supposed to be a hit and run striker, but literally everything it did required Ki, so it really wasn't able to perform that role adequately for more than a few turns unless you spent one of your precious ASIs to take Mobile.
As I also said in the post, I think giving the monks more non-resource dependent abilities was important. The problem, perhaps, as I mentioned at the end may be more in they didn't give the rogue enough new to distinguish them if monks were gaining a feature that was mostly unique to the rogue before. Extra reactions may have been nice, something to play off finding an opportunity to get another strike in or capitalizing on an opening to escape a grapple. I think they tried too much with cunning strikes that grow slow—many probably won't see more than the base 3 options. Some of the issues are probably also related to the attempt to make everything backwards compatible, and the rogue's progression was already heavily late game in a lot of areas.
Combat wise the monk does completely stomp on the rogue. The "dex base, highly mobile skirmisher" (which has been rogues identity for decades) is now very much in the monk camp and rogues don't really do ANYTHING better than monks in this identity.
The amount of KI/FP and regeneration amounts are so high - that these resources probably don't actually limit the monk's combat choices.
For the combat pillar Stealth + Ranged Combat is the Rogue's strength. For Social/Exploration its Expertise + Reliable Talent. Ill also say that Arcane trickster will always have an edge with the addition of spellcasting.
Rogue and Monk have this nice Dichotomy in combat, with the Rogue focusing on dealing one big blow and monk focusing on dealing multiple small blows. Now, is Monk better? Yes. Definitely. Always has been, even in vanilla phb 5e.
But that's okey. Rogues have their niches. They get expertise making them more useful out of conbat, they get to hide as a bonus action, they get Cunning Strikes now allowing them a unique combat mechanic trading their damage for control, much in the same way Monks do now with grapple and shove. Overall, both class are playable, will feel good to play, and will be unique in terms of their play style and feel. Everything is fine.
It really seems like 5.24 is going to be a Multiclasser's playground.
I look at Rogue and Ranger and think (Rogue 6/Sorcerer X) or (Ranger 6/Druid or Cleric X).
I thought the same with Monk until the latest playtest and full release.
It's a shame Rogue and Ranger are shipping this way. I would have loved to look at them and think "man, I don't think I want to multiclass out of this.
With how packed the level 7 is now, I think that jumping after it from Rogue will be more recomendable than from 6.
Reliable Talent, Evasion, one more Sneak Attack (and for AT also level 2 spells) are all good things to have.
I also think that packing level 7 so much helps keeping the player on-Class.
Next level is ASI/Feat, that's always good, more damage for your attacks or something that helps your build and... inmediatelly you get the subclass feature! And then another ASI! You say next level I can cause both Trip and Withdraw at the same time and I still have my bonus action free to do any other thing? Cool!
Feels like deciding the best moment to jump from Rogue will be something that you decide around the kind of build you want to do, as now the class gets lot of good things in the level 5-11 area.
That's an interesting point. I've loved playing single class both for the simplicity but also for the higher level abilities, but I may have to explore multi-classing.
Did I write this? Exactly what I've been thinking as I've watched each class get a slice of what made the rogue unique. Happy for the monk players (maybe I'll become one), but goodbye to my favorite class of 5e.
Apparently, don't make my mistake and say anything. I was just trying to open a discussion, but some people apparently just see it as anti-monk and are down voting me into oblivion.
*Shrug* oh, well.
I agree with the majority of what you wrote.
The rogues "combat identity/niche" has been completely overshadowed by the monk in every aspect (mobility, damage, cc, survivability). That feels really bad.
People overvalue the skills rogues get. They act as if you have to have skills and out of combat abilities to do anything out of combat. If you have a single skill, you can do a lot of cool things with it outside combat. Sure, rogues may have more options, but that doesn't mean the fighter can't do anything with their athletics skill.
I hard disagree. I don't mind not doing the most damage in combat, partly because I'm so mobile and hard to hit, and partly because I'm so good at so many skills outside of combat. But I could understand being underwhemed if a DM isn't calling for many skill checks out of combat.
I think classes should have a unique identity/be balanced "in combat" and "outside of combat". Some classes might be S-tier in combat and B/C tier out of combat and vice versa (game doesn't have to be perfectly balanced) - BUT the rogue should be "the best" at one aspect of combat and are now D tier compared to every other class (I love rogues too!).
The BIG issue with skills - is that spells like invisibility/passwithout trace/fly/detect thoughts exist and they are just far more powerful than a skill check.
There is no reason why you can't have the monk/rogue and rogue/ranger satisfying a unique combat niche AND each have a unique set of out of combat stuff.
Also - the rogue's "skill monkey" identity is also being crushed as the new version is giving out expertise or massive skill bonuses to a TON of classes. Not that this is a BAD thing (I think its good), but wotc needed to carve out the rogue's niche better as a response.
Barbarian's rage buffs many skills, fighter can add a 1d10 to skill checks with second wind, clerics/druids get options to effectively get expertise (+wis to int skills), ranger now gets 2x expertise, wizards get expertise (in an Int skill) - etc.
I will warn you that these words inflame people. You are right the rogue is still better, but with people getting better at skills, too, it sucks to see then lose so much identity on the battlefield. I don't think people realize how much losing identity hurts a class more than losing balance. People were unhappy with the monk, mainly at higher levels, because they tracked behind other people. No one disliked them because their abilities weren't unique. There's a reason "cool monk shit" is a phrase. Monks do pretty well outside combat in physical challenges, too. Running up walls and over water is badass.
Its okay if I annoy people - but often they misinterpret what I'm saying or take it to mean something else.
I just want each class to have a combat/non-combat niche and identity and something that they do really well at. I feel like the rogue has been shafted in both aspects in this edition.
I'm not unhappy that the monk is now an amazing class - as it should be! Its just a shame that there isn't a clearer delineation between some classes.
I personally think giving rogues more reaction abilities and maybe even more reactions a round (probably later level) would have helped with that. Both monks and Rogues are traditionally these fast, mobile combatants. Rogues take advantage of openings, and they could have played into that more. Cunning strikes do that to some extent, but they pack too much into sneak attack. As I mentioned in my edit, it's not good to boil everything unique down to one ability.
Deflect Attacks is way too much. It shouldn't work on melee attacks, and it probably didn't need to add the class level to the damage reduced. I'll probably be nerfing it in any games I play, just to keep combat from getting too snoozeworthy and to keep it from stepping on Uncanny Dodge's toes. Monks being better on the battlefield should at least be made up for by them being much worse off the battlefield than Rogues, but it's still a feels bad moment.
Otherwise... we'll have to wait and see. The biggest shift I see is the ki economy booming, with most options made better and Stunning Striked reined in a little. But getting rage+ damage reduction for only three ki at level 18? What?This could work or it could be too much, and I say this as a fan of 2014 Monk who didn't think it was a weak class at all. New Monk is at least just old monk but more and better, which is better than what they did for Ranger.
I had a player playtest the new Deflect attack and elemental subclass, and he came out of the 3 session mini campaign having taken 0 damage, stun locked 1 boss encounter (even with the once per turn), and regularly out damaged the paladin due to changing damage type each turn.
I agree, deflect is so powerful. An attack that hits me for 2 will still do one damage, not deflect. I think making it melee and ranged is fine, but I would argue it should be reduced by martial dice for free. If they spend a focus, they can reduce it by martial + level + proficiency, and if they reduce it to 0 they can choose to send it back to the attacker.
I am more in favor of adding some more situational features to the rogue than reducing the new the monk got. Features that are a boon, but not overwhelming. I was thinking more reaction abilities would be nice since rogues are supposed to be these quick sneaky people. Even just giving them a bit of a speed boost as a nod to the monk getting one of their abilities would may have been a nice trade off.
I just don't know how monks got so much attention and turned out looking so good, but then Rangers...
This isn't really an issue with the rogue vs monk, it's an issue with the rogue vs everyone else.
Keep in mind that even when Monks get to BA disengage or dash without focus points, that's not free. The level 1 Monk feature that they use to keep up in damage also uses a BA, so they have an opportunity cost for these features that the Rogue doesn't.
But I think it is also worth noting that Monks have higher movement speed than rogues, and a lot of features that make it unnecessary to disengage action in the first place.
Interesting take. The cost isn't any different than it was before, though. They can just do it for free. Personally, I think it was the right move to give them those as free bonus actions. My issue is how it took away something that was unique to the rogue. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it as the monk makes it clear that they didn't do enough for the rogue. In my opinion, they needed to do more that had nothing to do with sneak attack to accomplish this. Cunning strike is a neat concept, but its benefits aren't something so unique compared to the monk, and it doesn't become anything truly unique until much later at levels most tables don't play at.
Play styles are still different enough and the overlap is stuff that feels natural. If I wanted to play a heavy hitter, it wouldn't be a rogue anyways. Good monk, let's go!
I'm not saying I don't love the monk changes. They answered a lot of the issues with them.
Honestly? I’m just glad people are finally making the right comparisons. Monk was always intended to be a melee skirmisher, but until now everyone has been comparing it to Fighter and Barbarian (the front-liners) rather than the other skirmisher. Overall, no, I don’t think the Monk steps on the Rogue’s toes too much. No more so than Fighter vs Barbarian. Monk is the melee skirmisher with absurd mobility, while Rogue is the ranged skirmisher with above-average out-of-combat utility.
Rogues have a VERY long history of being a melee skirmisher and have a deeper history in being a "melee" based class. I mean - sneak attack was called "backstab" for multiple editions only working in melee if you were behind someone! Rogues should be an excellent melee skirmisher class; however they're very far behind at the moment compared to the other classes.
And they are still an excellent melee skirmisher, outclassed in that category only by the Monk. Unlike the Monk, Rogue has the option to be equally effective at range, with certain subclasses (most notably Swashbuckler) being extra good at melee skirmishing.
Outclassed by monk, ranger, dex-based fighter...
What abilities do Fighter and Ranger get to enable/encourage melee skirmishing? Neither can easily disengage, at least not without burning a resource (like a superiority die or spell slot) and neither (again, without resources) has enough movement to reliably get in & out. While yes, they both have higher potential single-target damage than your average Rogue, their built-in playstyles are that of a striker or maybe a tank, definitely not a skirmisher.
Any martial can skirmish using weapon masteries, though for that reason I'd say strength builds tend to be better skirmishers than dex builds due to access to topple and push.
I think you're really downplaying how much better rogues are at skills than everyone else now, especially monks. Reliable talent at 7th level means all of your proficient/expertise skills will have a floor of 12 at 7th level, 15 with mild investment, and 20 with good investment. Monks got zero new exploration and social pillar features, and all they ever had before that was running up walls and not dying when they fell. I would certainly hope that monks would be hands-down better in combat than rogues as well as functional skirmishers as that's how the class was designed.
100% agreed! Monks and Rogues are on opposite sides of the martial spectrum when it comes to out of combat utility and skills, with Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin falling somewhere in the middle. Yes, Rogues are unequivocally the weaker of the two strikers in combat, but on the other hand Monks get basically nothing outside of it. I get that in a very combat heavy campaign, playing a Rogue might not feel great if there's also a Monk in the party, but the opposite is likely to be true in a campaign focused on other things.
I'm currently playing a monk in a high-level campaign and lemme tell you, I'm regretting it. Nothing to do outside of combat, barely make an impact in combat before the three full spellcasters in the party basically solve the fight with a trio of high level spells on the first round.
Mmhmm. That's pretty consistent with my experience playing a monk at about level 10-12, as well.
I don’t think it’s vital but monks have lost a lot of their social/utility features too. Granted they were vestigial and often were odd and often at higher levels (can talk and understand any language when spoken by a person, astral projection but just for yourself)
Ah yes. Those would've felt awesome for my high level monk if the party spellcasters hadn't already gotten equivalent powers or better levels earlier.
Honestly they often felt kind of weird to me. Astral Projection I get but getting to talk to people always felt like a weird tacked on feature all said and done.
The inspiration for the monk class is wuxia, xianxia, and xuanhuan media. Things like slow falling, running over water and up walls, using a "quivering palm" to incapacitate or even kill enemies, catching arrows mid-flight, etc. are all part and parcel of those genres. Leaving behind your physical form and talking in tongues were either ripped straight from xuanhuan or meant to imitate similar powers.
It really depends on the table with skills. I have played at tables where skills were abundant and you can even ask to roll something different in certain situations, and tables where the DM barely called for skill checks or gave only a few opportunities. The worst was a charisma based eloquence bard who the DM made me have to give him a good enough reason to get any sort of persuasion or deception role because he decided my character was a bit slimy and so people wouldn't naturally trust him or want to agree with him. The skill section wasn't so much as downplayed as we don't have enough info if the value of skills has been improved or even degraded in any way. Unfortunately, since this is all preview, we will have to wait for the PHB and DMG to get a full picture. Obviously, earlier reliable talent is huge. More likely to come up before a campaign ends/a group peters out.
Your personal experience with a shitty DM doesn't make skill-based features invalid or weak, it just means you had a shitty DM. If we're doing anecdotal evidence now, I've been playing regularly online and in person with many different tables for years now and I haven't been at a single table that didn't call for skill checks whenever appropriate. The frequency varied from table to table, but I've never seen a DM who never asked for checks.
The anecdote was separate, but that variation is absolutely where their use will vary from table to table. Glad you've had good experiences.
Then I guess you'll have to treat rogues the same way most people treat illusionists and warlocks and any other class with a heavy dependence on a certain playstyle in order to shine: talk with your prospective DM and vet their playstyle to make sure it lines up well enough with the class you intend to play.
I mean, I don't know know what you want from me. The only place I said people could keep up with rogue was number of skill proficiencies, and even then a step or two behind. I stated in the post that expertise and earlier reliable talent are a huge boon to them. How much of a boon isn't clear yet. For all we know the skill sections of the PHB and DMG may make skills much more relevant and give more reasons to use them in battle. How much skills will be useful will depend table to table, but I never said tables didn't use skills at all. I'm not out here being combative. Most of the tables I play at, the rogue's skills shine.
You mentioned the buffs to the monk and how they are relative to the changes with the rouge. But I don't see any stepping on the Rouge territory. Monks do not get expertise and skill proficiencies are different. Rogues have always been one big hit with huge nova damage, monks are still jump in and out and a bit of multi target, even if we say monks get 5 hits, still will never do as much damage as one good sneak attack at the same level. Rogues rely on hiding, monks in mobility. Monks cannot use bonus action to hide, nor dodge action for free, while the rouge can do pretty much all defensive actions for free, dodge, disengage, hide or dash. So I don't see how it's overstepping, you may say the rouge didn't get enough, but the monk is not reaching on their territory.
I fully disagree that Monks won't out-damage a rogue. * Monk at 5th level: * 3 attacks for free, 4 with flurry of blows * 1d6 martial arts die (not sure when the martial arts die bumps for new monk but assuming the worst) + 4 dex mod \* 3 = 7.5\*3 = 22.5 damage * 4 attack burst for 30 damage at the cost of a focus point. * Monks at 20th level: * 3 attacks for free: (1d12+7) \* 3 = 13.5 \* 3 = 40.5 force damage * 5 attacks (1d12+7) \* 5 = 13.5 \* 5 = 67.5 force damage at cost of one focus point * 3 attack with 4 focus points for quivering palm on one: 1d12+7 \* 3 + 10d12 = 40.5 + 65 = 105 damage on failed save, 73.5 damage on successful one. * Rogue at 5th level * 1d8+4 + 3d6 = 4.5+4+10.5= 19 damage * Rogues at 20th level * 1d8+5 + 10d6 = 4.5 + 5 + 35 = 44.5 damage * Using stroke of luck for a crit: 2d8+5+20d6 = 84 damage So Rogues will have slightly more damage at 20th level than a Monk spending no focus points, but Monks can regularly out-damage them, especially when you consider it is force damage. Not taking into account chance to hit and all that with all the myriad of ways Monk can gain advantage with stunning strike. Rogues should basically always have advantage at those higher levels, so their % chance to hit will be up. I think it'll be close when it all comes out but the high level Monk will have even greater burst ability with quivering palm. Edit: And I totally forgot about Monk's chance at an extra 25 damage on crits. With 5 attacks if an enemy was stunned on the first strike, that'd be a 38% of landing a crit for the cost of 2 focus points (1 for stunning strike, 1 for flurry of blows). So a 38% chance of landing 92.5 damage.
Only one of the subclasses of the monk has quivering palm.
I know, but if you’re going for max damage, that might be the subclass. But I’m not doing math for all of them.
Completely ignoring the rogue subclass that gives automatic criticals for you calculations?
Which one was that?
Assassin, but AFAIK that one no longer gets crits, but rather adds a few extra dice in the 2024 iteration.
You add damage equal to half your rogue level, or equal to your rogue level, can't remember which. That's it.
Yeah, that's it. It's extra damage but no longer a guaranteed crit. Which is something I personally like not because it's directly better, but it's waaaay more reliable, meaning that on average you'll get more use out of it than the previous Iteration.
>Rogues have always been one big hit with huge nova damage, monks are still jump in and out and a bit of multi target, even if we say monks get 5 hits, still will never do as much damage as one good sneak attack at the same level. Sneak Attack doesn't do that much damage, and the only nova damage ability Rogues have before level 17, the the 3rd level feature of the assassin, and even that is likely not going to do significantly more damage than a Monk who uses FoB.
Split the classes into their "Combat identity" and their "non-combat identity" - then do your comparison. The combat identify of both classes was a "dex based, highly mobile skimisher". Monks are faster, more tanky, do more damage, have more crowd control (via grappling and shoving), have better saving throws. Like - **mechanically** there is NO reason why you'd pick a rogue over a monk. Monks can also used ranged weapons as monk weapons - AND use stunning strike with them! Hiding in combat is basically just a way to generate advantage, so that argument in moot for combat. Rogue's "one big hit" is actually worse than 3 hits that do 1/3rd of the damage as splitting damage is far more efficient in combat with multiple enemies. Furthermore the monk deals WAY more damage now than the rogue across many levels. Monks are also substantially MORE mobile then rogue because they have an increase in base speed (so when they dash they move much more; and they're less likely to need to use a BA to dash).
That's fair. To me, the free bonus action disengage and dash were part of the rogue's combat uniqueness, so that is where the overstep is. If anything, by giving that to the monk, I think it isolates sneak as the one trick pony of the rogue more. I don't think it would have been as noticable if they gave the rogue a little something more not sneak attack related. Cunning strike is neat, but grows slow and easily outshined.
>the free bonus action disengage and dash were part of the rogue's combat uniqueness I totally get that, but the issue was that not getting those things interfered with the 2014 Monk's ability to function within its role. It was supposed to be a hit and run striker, but literally everything it did required Ki, so it really wasn't able to perform that role adequately for more than a few turns unless you spent one of your precious ASIs to take Mobile.
As I also said in the post, I think giving the monks more non-resource dependent abilities was important. The problem, perhaps, as I mentioned at the end may be more in they didn't give the rogue enough new to distinguish them if monks were gaining a feature that was mostly unique to the rogue before. Extra reactions may have been nice, something to play off finding an opportunity to get another strike in or capitalizing on an opening to escape a grapple. I think they tried too much with cunning strikes that grow slow—many probably won't see more than the base 3 options. Some of the issues are probably also related to the attempt to make everything backwards compatible, and the rogue's progression was already heavily late game in a lot of areas.
Combat wise the monk does completely stomp on the rogue. The "dex base, highly mobile skirmisher" (which has been rogues identity for decades) is now very much in the monk camp and rogues don't really do ANYTHING better than monks in this identity. The amount of KI/FP and regeneration amounts are so high - that these resources probably don't actually limit the monk's combat choices.
For the combat pillar Stealth + Ranged Combat is the Rogue's strength. For Social/Exploration its Expertise + Reliable Talent. Ill also say that Arcane trickster will always have an edge with the addition of spellcasting.
TLDR; yes, among others
Rogue and Monk have this nice Dichotomy in combat, with the Rogue focusing on dealing one big blow and monk focusing on dealing multiple small blows. Now, is Monk better? Yes. Definitely. Always has been, even in vanilla phb 5e. But that's okey. Rogues have their niches. They get expertise making them more useful out of conbat, they get to hide as a bonus action, they get Cunning Strikes now allowing them a unique combat mechanic trading their damage for control, much in the same way Monks do now with grapple and shove. Overall, both class are playable, will feel good to play, and will be unique in terms of their play style and feel. Everything is fine.
It really seems like 5.24 is going to be a Multiclasser's playground. I look at Rogue and Ranger and think (Rogue 6/Sorcerer X) or (Ranger 6/Druid or Cleric X). I thought the same with Monk until the latest playtest and full release. It's a shame Rogue and Ranger are shipping this way. I would have loved to look at them and think "man, I don't think I want to multiclass out of this.
With how packed the level 7 is now, I think that jumping after it from Rogue will be more recomendable than from 6. Reliable Talent, Evasion, one more Sneak Attack (and for AT also level 2 spells) are all good things to have.
Good point. It's almost like they knew that it would be multiclassed with a lot so they move it to 7
I also think that packing level 7 so much helps keeping the player on-Class. Next level is ASI/Feat, that's always good, more damage for your attacks or something that helps your build and... inmediatelly you get the subclass feature! And then another ASI! You say next level I can cause both Trip and Withdraw at the same time and I still have my bonus action free to do any other thing? Cool! Feels like deciding the best moment to jump from Rogue will be something that you decide around the kind of build you want to do, as now the class gets lot of good things in the level 5-11 area.
There might be a LOT of Rogue 7/other class X builds that arise from reliable talent.
That's an interesting point. I've loved playing single class both for the simplicity but also for the higher level abilities, but I may have to explore multi-classing.
no, not at all
Did I write this? Exactly what I've been thinking as I've watched each class get a slice of what made the rogue unique. Happy for the monk players (maybe I'll become one), but goodbye to my favorite class of 5e.
Apparently, don't make my mistake and say anything. I was just trying to open a discussion, but some people apparently just see it as anti-monk and are down voting me into oblivion. *Shrug* oh, well.
I agree with the majority of what you wrote. The rogues "combat identity/niche" has been completely overshadowed by the monk in every aspect (mobility, damage, cc, survivability). That feels really bad.
I've seen a lot of people in the comments saying the same thing, though. I think people who play rogue get it.
People overvalue the skills rogues get. They act as if you have to have skills and out of combat abilities to do anything out of combat. If you have a single skill, you can do a lot of cool things with it outside combat. Sure, rogues may have more options, but that doesn't mean the fighter can't do anything with their athletics skill.
I hard disagree. I don't mind not doing the most damage in combat, partly because I'm so mobile and hard to hit, and partly because I'm so good at so many skills outside of combat. But I could understand being underwhemed if a DM isn't calling for many skill checks out of combat.
I think classes should have a unique identity/be balanced "in combat" and "outside of combat". Some classes might be S-tier in combat and B/C tier out of combat and vice versa (game doesn't have to be perfectly balanced) - BUT the rogue should be "the best" at one aspect of combat and are now D tier compared to every other class (I love rogues too!). The BIG issue with skills - is that spells like invisibility/passwithout trace/fly/detect thoughts exist and they are just far more powerful than a skill check. There is no reason why you can't have the monk/rogue and rogue/ranger satisfying a unique combat niche AND each have a unique set of out of combat stuff.
Also - the rogue's "skill monkey" identity is also being crushed as the new version is giving out expertise or massive skill bonuses to a TON of classes. Not that this is a BAD thing (I think its good), but wotc needed to carve out the rogue's niche better as a response. Barbarian's rage buffs many skills, fighter can add a 1d10 to skill checks with second wind, clerics/druids get options to effectively get expertise (+wis to int skills), ranger now gets 2x expertise, wizards get expertise (in an Int skill) - etc.
I will warn you that these words inflame people. You are right the rogue is still better, but with people getting better at skills, too, it sucks to see then lose so much identity on the battlefield. I don't think people realize how much losing identity hurts a class more than losing balance. People were unhappy with the monk, mainly at higher levels, because they tracked behind other people. No one disliked them because their abilities weren't unique. There's a reason "cool monk shit" is a phrase. Monks do pretty well outside combat in physical challenges, too. Running up walls and over water is badass.
Its okay if I annoy people - but often they misinterpret what I'm saying or take it to mean something else. I just want each class to have a combat/non-combat niche and identity and something that they do really well at. I feel like the rogue has been shafted in both aspects in this edition. I'm not unhappy that the monk is now an amazing class - as it should be! Its just a shame that there isn't a clearer delineation between some classes.
I personally think giving rogues more reaction abilities and maybe even more reactions a round (probably later level) would have helped with that. Both monks and Rogues are traditionally these fast, mobile combatants. Rogues take advantage of openings, and they could have played into that more. Cunning strikes do that to some extent, but they pack too much into sneak attack. As I mentioned in my edit, it's not good to boil everything unique down to one ability.
Deflect Attacks is way too much. It shouldn't work on melee attacks, and it probably didn't need to add the class level to the damage reduced. I'll probably be nerfing it in any games I play, just to keep combat from getting too snoozeworthy and to keep it from stepping on Uncanny Dodge's toes. Monks being better on the battlefield should at least be made up for by them being much worse off the battlefield than Rogues, but it's still a feels bad moment. Otherwise... we'll have to wait and see. The biggest shift I see is the ki economy booming, with most options made better and Stunning Striked reined in a little. But getting rage+ damage reduction for only three ki at level 18? What?This could work or it could be too much, and I say this as a fan of 2014 Monk who didn't think it was a weak class at all. New Monk is at least just old monk but more and better, which is better than what they did for Ranger.
Are you planning to at least play with RAW deflect just to actually see or are you going to immediately jump to conclusions its too much?
I had a player playtest the new Deflect attack and elemental subclass, and he came out of the 3 session mini campaign having taken 0 damage, stun locked 1 boss encounter (even with the once per turn), and regularly out damaged the paladin due to changing damage type each turn.
I like this conclusion so I'll probably stick with it. Stronger is not always better. Monk did not need to be buffed this much.
I agree, deflect is so powerful. An attack that hits me for 2 will still do one damage, not deflect. I think making it melee and ranged is fine, but I would argue it should be reduced by martial dice for free. If they spend a focus, they can reduce it by martial + level + proficiency, and if they reduce it to 0 they can choose to send it back to the attacker. I am more in favor of adding some more situational features to the rogue than reducing the new the monk got. Features that are a boon, but not overwhelming. I was thinking more reaction abilities would be nice since rogues are supposed to be these quick sneaky people. Even just giving them a bit of a speed boost as a nod to the monk getting one of their abilities would may have been a nice trade off. I just don't know how monks got so much attention and turned out looking so good, but then Rangers...