Rogue - Monk: One Class

[Trickery]

This is a design discussion about the Rogue and Monk classes. I'm not trying to make any changes to 5e or anything, just looking at them from a high level.

The Rogue and Monk classes fill similar roles and have similar or shared mechanics:

Less damage than a fighter, but more than someone spamming cantrips
Light armor or none, definitely no plate
Lower HP / tankiness than a fighter or barbarian, but can tank with certain builds
Dexterity emphasis (usually)
High mobility
Light "finesse"-style weapons
Evasion
Acrobatics
Often good at stealth
Often good at scouting
Bonus action dash and disengage
Reaction to reduce incoming damage
No inherent spellcasting except from subclasses

Despite the similarities, these are distinct classes. So what? Sorcerer and Wizard are also similar, yet distinct. The same can be said of Fighter and Barbarian.

But I wonder if Rogue and Monk need to be separate.

When presented as distinct classes, there is often overlap between the two, as shown above. And from a class fantasy perspective, there's a good reason. Is a ninja more like a Monk or more like a Rogue? What about an acrobatic thief?

The fact that their class fantasy has overlap causes overlap in their abilities. In D&D, both of these classes have evasion, bonus action dash and disengage, and reaction abilities that reduce damage (and other similarities shown above). In other games, there have been abilities given to one that would have made just as much sense on the other. For example, Rogues in WoW have kick, evasion, sprint, and kidney shot, and Monks have similar abilities such as evasive rolls that would have made sense for a Rogue.

Often, lots of special, pseudo-magical, "ki" or "chi" abilities are given to the Monk to differentiate it from the Rogue. There are plenty of these ki abilities in D&D, and WoW is another good example. But many don't like those Eastern-inspired aspects. Many feel that its themes don't suit medieval fantasy. Monk is perhaps the most-complained-about class from a fantasy perspective.

But I've seen the two combined into a single class a few times, and it seems to always turn out well. The best example is the Assassin class from Diablo 2. This class used unique fist weapons, like claws and katars. It had plenty of stealth and speed and trap abilities, like a Rogue, but also martial arts like a Monk. It represented the "ninja" class fantasy, a popular idea for both the Rogue and Monk classes.

Guild Wars 2 also did this with their "Daredevil", an acrobatic thief with a staff and Monk-like abilities. In practice, it plays like a hybrid.

Lastly, the extraordinarily popular Monk class from original EverQuest, though distinct from the Rogue, was also more of a Rogue-styled Monk than usual. Its abilities included strikes, fighting with two weapons or staves, and feigning death. In practice, the class operated as a scout, puller (meaning it brought enemies to the party), and damage dealer, much like the Rogue. In fact, it was better than the Rogue at all of these except damage.

When the two are released as a single merged class, I've never seen anyone say that it doesn't fit the medieval fantasy. It seems to me that few think of this, but no one complains when it happens.

[JNAProductions]

Why would you want to remove perfectly good options?

If you're designing a system from the ground-up, I can see folding Monk into Rogue... Maybe. But for 5E, they're already fully fleshed out options-there's no need to remove one in favor of the other, or try to merge them.

[Trickery]

Why would you want to remove perfectly good options?

If you're designing a system from the ground-up, I can see folding Monk into Rogue... Maybe. But for 5E, they're already fully fleshed out options-there's no need to remove one in favor of the other, or try to merge them.

I'm not trying to change anything about 5e, just discussing design.

[Nagog]

While I agree that they have a lot of overlap between the two, I think combining them may do more harm to the rogue than it would good to the Monk. When I think of a rogue, there is the option of a sneaky, ninja-esque individual, however moreso I imagine characters like Han Solo, Bilbo Baggins, and Jack Sparrow, none of which fit the Ninja aesthetic in the slightest.

What could help them overlap better is something like allowing a Monk's unarmed strikes to be considered Finesse or Light weapons so it would synergize with Sneak Attack (With the imagery of the neck chop to knock somebody out and such), or even some kind of multiclassing mechanic similar to how multiclassing two Spellcasting classes gain bonus and higher spell slots. Perhaps something like two monk levels are worth one Rogue level in determining Sneak Attack damage and 2 Rogue levels equate to 1 Monk level in determining Ki points? Either way, they could use some tweaking for better synergy.

[Talsin]

This is a design discussion about the Rogue and Monk classes. I'm not trying to make any changes to 5e or anything, just looking at them from a high level.

The Rogue and Monk classes fill similar roles and have similar or shared mechanics:

Less damage than a fighter, but more than someone spamming cantrips
Light armor or none, definitely no plate
Lower HP / tankiness than a fighter or barbarian, but can tank with certain builds
Dexterity emphasis (usually)
High mobility
Light "finesse"-style weapons
Evasion
Acrobatics
Often good at stealth
Often good at scouting
Bonus action dash and disengage
Reaction to reduce incoming damage
No inherent spellcasting except from subclasses

Despite the similarities, these are distinct classes. So what? Sorcerer and Wizard are also similar, yet distinct. The same can be said of Fighter and Barbarian.

But I wonder if Rogue and Monk need to be separate.

When presented as distinct classes, there is often overlap between the two, as shown above. And from a class fantasy perspective, there's a good reason. Is a ninja more like a Monk or more like a Rogue? What about an acrobatic thief?

The fact that their class fantasy has overlap causes overlap in their abilities. In D&D, both of these classes have evasion, bonus action dash and disengage, and reaction abilities that reduce damage (and other similarities shown above). In other games, there have been abilities given to one that would have made just as much sense on the other. For example, Rogues in WoW have kick, evasion, sprint, and kidney shot, and Monks have similar abilities such as evasive rolls that would have made sense for a Rogue.

Often, lots of special, pseudo-magical, "ki" or "chi" abilities are given to the Monk to differentiate it from the Rogue. There are plenty of these ki abilities in D&D, and WoW is another good example. But many don't like those Eastern-inspired aspects. Many feel that its themes don't suit medieval fantasy. Monk is perhaps the most-complained-about class from a fantasy perspective.

But I've seen the two combined into a single class a few times, and it seems to always turn out well. The best example is the Assassin class from Diablo 2. This class used unique fist weapons, like claws and katars. It had plenty of stealth and speed and trap abilities, like a Rogue, but also martial arts like a Monk. It represented the "ninja" class fantasy, a popular idea for both the Rogue and Monk classes.

Guild Wars 2 also did this with their "Daredevil", an acrobatic thief with a staff and Monk-like abilities. In practice, it plays like a hybrid.

Lastly, the extraordinarily popular Monk class from original EverQuest, though distinct from the Rogue, was also more of a Rogue-styled Monk than usual. Its abilities included strikes, fighting with two weapons or staves, and feigning death. In practice, the class operated as a scout, puller (meaning it brought enemies to the party), and damage dealer, much like the Rogue. In fact, it was better than the Rogue at all of these except damage.

When the two are released as a single merged class, I've never seen anyone say that it doesn't fit the medieval fantasy. It seems to me that few think of this, but no one complains when it happens.

Looking at it from a design perspective, it would seem that there is distinction made to enable different core mechanics, while illustrating that with separate themes that happen to brush shoulders with each other (much like Ranger, Fighter, and Barbarian do as well).
While their concept may be similar, the play-style varies between the two, especially in combat. Rogues get the Sneak Attack as a core mechanic allowing them to do damage more consistently and thematically puts them as being non-magical, but still dangerous. Monks on the other hand have a resource they spend to do many of the things that can make them seem supernatural or mystical often doing things that may seem beyond normal human capabilities.

[Trickery]

While I agree that they have a lot of overlap between the two, I think combining them may do more harm to the rogue than it would good to the Monk. When I think of a rogue, there is the option of a sneaky, ninja-esque individual, however moreso I imagine characters like Han Solo, Bilbo Baggins, and Jack Sparrow, none of which fit the Ninja aesthetic in the slightest.

What could help them overlap better is something like allowing a Monk's unarmed strikes to be considered Finesse or Light weapons so it would synergize with Sneak Attack (With the imagery of the neck chop to knock somebody out and such), or even some kind of multiclassing mechanic similar to how multiclassing two Spellcasting classes gain bonus and higher spell slots. Perhaps something like two monk levels are worth one Rogue level in determining Sneak Attack damage and 2 Rogue levels equate to 1 Monk level in determining Ki points? Either way, they could use some tweaking for better synergy.

Sure, all good points. I'm not looking to combine the two in 5e or tweak anything right now, just discussing design.

If I did, I would take the Monk weapon list and say that the Monk can treat any of those as having finesse. Sneak attack would need to be tweaked with extra attack in mind, so as not to break the math. Otherwise, I imagine it wouldn't be difficult.

But, again, this isn't a proposal for 5e as is.

[Misterwhisper]

The point of rogue is one well placed attack for big damage.

Monk is about more attacks than everyone else sooner for smaller damage.

Kind of opposites there.

There is already a sneaky and shadowy monk subclass.
Just make a rogue subclass that can use a few more weapons for SA and it is fine.

I am surprised there is not already a rogue subclass that opens up more weapon options.

[Dr. Cliché]

I mean, I'm sure Monks would appreciate a version of Step of the Wind that doesn't cost them Ki. :smallbiggrin:


That aside, did you have any more solid ideas for us to consider? Are you thinking that one of the classes would remain mostly the same and the other would just end up as a subclass of it? Or are you looking for a complete mix of function and mechanics? If so, any idea what it would look like? It's hard to evaluate the idea when I have so little clue as to what the finished class would look like.

[Nagog]

Sure, all good points. I'm not looking to combine the two in 5e or tweak anything right now, just discussing design.

If I did, I would take the Monk weapon list and say that the Monk can treat any of those as having finesse. Sneak attack would need to be tweaked with extra attack in mind, so as not to break the math. Otherwise, I imagine it wouldn't be difficult.

But, again, this isn't a proposal for 5e as is.

Yeah I getcha, it's just good food for thought for now. As for the tweak to Sneak attack, isn't Sneak Attack already limited to once per turn?

[Trickery]

Yeah I getcha, it's just good food for thought for now. As for the tweak to Sneak attack, isn't Sneak Attack already limited to once per turn?

It is. It's just that a hypothetical merger of the two probably shouldn't outdamage them, meaning we wouldn't want a class to have both rogue sneak attack as is and extra attack at the same time. I also remember the designers saying they were wary of sneak attack being used with extra attack, or something of that nature.

[gkathellar]

The point of rogue is one well placed attack for big damage.

Monk is about more attacks than everyone else sooner for smaller damage.

Kind of opposites there.

In terms of mechanical niche, it's pretty much this. Rogues exist for the sake of Sneak Attack, and monks exist for the sake of unarmed Flurry of Blows.

[Angelmaker]

But I've seen the two combined into a single class a few times, and it seems to always turn out well. The best example is the Assassin class from Diablo 2. This class used unique fist weapons, like claws and katars. It had plenty of stealth and speed and trap abilities, like a Rogue, but also martial arts like a Monk. It represented the "ninja" class fantasy, a popular idea for both the Rogue and Monk

Then again in diablo I the monk was introduced in a DLC after the rogue class was already present in the game.

[Nagog]

It is. It's just that a hypothetical merger of the two probably shouldn't outdamage them, meaning we wouldn't want a class to have both rogue sneak attack as is and extra attack at the same time. I also remember the designers saying they were wary of sneak attack being used with extra attack, or something of that nature.

Huh. I mean considering multiclassing generally has you lose out on quite a bit, I don't see why that would be much of a concern, but Whatever goat you float I guess.

[Frozenstep]

How do you represent the fighting style of someone who's quick and nimble? Countless media have plenty of examples, and it comes in different flavors.

The two classes are both "quick and nimble warriors", but if you combine them you'll lose one of the ways of expressing that speed. Rogue is more like an assassin, their speed is all in service of delivering a single powerful blow, and they also work as powerful snipers. Monk, meanwhile, is a brawler who generally can't function as well from range, but augments their fighting style with technique to overwhelm opponents.