D&D 5E Why do Monks only have d8 HP instead of d10 HP?

[Slit518]

I though only assassins got to x7, the others were capped at x5 (?).

This is the extent of my knowledge of 2e, based on BG:SoA

I literally had it typed, erased it to make a point it was a Thief Kit, and forgot to add it back in. EL OH EL!

 

[Lyxen]

Really? I just mentioned a very easy build to get guaranteed ranged sneak attack twice per round... it only really needs a few ranks in one skill and a single feat.
If you are really going to compare a dual wand rogue with Pun Pun, I don't think it's line or argument is going to lead us anywhere.

It's not a rogue build, it relies on wands an on Improved Invisibility, so it's probably Arcane Trickster, which means you can't pull that off until fairly late in the game and your sneak attack is gimped by you arcane trickster level, not mentioning that you need to case Improved Invisibility first and then have adversaries which, at that level, don't know how to deal with invisibility, which is certainly not a guarantee.

 

[Nefermandias]

It's not a rogue build, it relies on wands an on Improved Invisibility, so it's probably Arcane Trickster, which means you can't pull that off until fairly late in the game and your sneak attack is gimped by you arcane trickster level, not mentioning that you need to case Improved Invisibility first and then have adversaries which, at that level, don't know how to deal with invisibility, which is certainly not a guarantee.

It relies on sneak attack and rogue's (and bard's, I guess) exclusive skill Use Magic Device...
How come it's not "a rogue build"?

I'm out.

 

[billd91]

It's not a rogue build, it relies on wands an on Improved Invisibility, so it's probably Arcane Trickster, which means you can't pull that off until fairly late in the game and your sneak attack is gimped by you arcane trickster level, not mentioning that you need to case Improved Invisibility first and then have adversaries which, at that level, don't know how to deal with invisibility, which is certainly not a guarantee.

You could have done it with Use Magic Devices - but the wand is pretty expensive.
The wand-making rules were pretty game skewing and I'm glad they're now gone.

 

[Lyxen]

... Combining that with Major Invisibility would give you two really powerful ranged touch attacks...

Enough said indeed...

 

[Nefermandias]

Enough said indeed...

You do realize the invisibility is not required, right? Plenty of ways to make the opponent flat footed without being invisible. It's just the easiest way.
Heck, even in Order of the Stick Vaarsuvius uses this tactic of casting Greater Invisibility on Halley... It's not rocket science.

 

[Lyxen]

You do realize the invisibility is not required, right? Plenty of ways to make the opponent flat footed without being invisible. It's just the easiest way.

And again, in my experience, there are not that many if the adversaries are at the right level, especially if you're ranged with wands.

Heck, even in Order of the Stick Vaarsuvius uses this tactic of casting Greater Invisibility on Halley... It's not rocket science.

No-one said it was, but do they use it systematically ? No, because it takes resources and the circumstances are not always appropriate, also magic is not always reliable and neither is invisibility.

 

[Nefermandias]

And again, in my experience, there are not that many if the adversaries are at the right level, especially if you're ranged with wands.



No-one said it was, but do they use it systematically ? No, because it takes resources and the circumstances are not always appropriate, also magic is not always reliable and neither is invisibility.

I think our divergence here is our conflicting notions on how abundant magic items were in 3e. I'm not in the mood to pull my old DMG and look at the wealth by level table though.

 

[Campbell]

I know that historically monks in D&D have been a sort of mobile harrier with strong control (not that the implementation has ever really worked), but that's not the experience a lot of people who are aesthetically attracted to monks want. A good number of people just want to kick dragons in the teeth. Paizo made the right call in Pathfinder Unchained when they made elevated monks to the profile of paladins, rangers, and fighters. I think Wizards should follow suit.

 

[Stalker0]

not mentioning that you need to case Improved Invisibility first and then have adversaries which, at that level, don't know how to deal with invisibility, which is certainly not a guarantee.

Another example from that game I just mentioned. The rogue (16th level) in the group has a ring of invisibility, and yet still often doesn't get SA in the first round due to how many high CR monsters have the ability to negate it.