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

[Slit518]

I am often curious as to why the Monk, which is essentially a Martial Artist only a d8 for Hit Points?

Classes like the Fighter; Paladin; Ranger get a d10 because it is supposed to symbolize their rugged life style and hard training.

But, have you ever seen a Shaolin Monk or any other martial artist where training is their life style, which the D&D Monk is obviously based off of those life style choices and troupes.

When one lives that life style they train for a large portion of the day, putting their body to extreme limits. Not only that, but you spar constantly. Heck, even in the USA when you take a martial art, such as Taekwondo for example (which I did, I also did Boxing; Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu; Hapkido), you spar 3 times a week minimum, except BJJ and Hapkido where you need an opponent to learn moves with every class.

So, with that reasoning, of constantly being at warfare (albeit within your temple, monastery, dojo, school, etc), putting your body through rigorous exercise and training, why is the Monk only a d8? Would you not agree it should be a d10?

I just picture Fighters; Paladins; Rangers going out, doing their armor and weapon training, their drills, and sparring with weapons with some light hand-to-hand. Mainly protected because they're using armor or training weapons (blunted edges, not full force techniques, wooden tips, etc).

Monks or Martial Artists spar, and in a lot of them they have full contact, though, some instances you use padding and protection, with boxing for example with gloves, helmet, and mouth piece. But, even then you can still get messed up pretty bad.

I am sure if you search the internet you fan find tons of examples of various culture training their Martial Art, the Human Weapon for example, Fight Quest, even documentaries on various ones around the world. You can see how rigorous it can be.

Well, anyways, enough of my rambling, thoughts?

 

[Aldarc]

 

[billd91]

Ultimately, because d8 is better than d4s like they had back in 1e.

And probably also because designers have probably looked at having a bunch of hit points based on a d10 being a primary domain of Fighter classes rather than a broader martial category.

 

[Lyxen]

Ultimately, because d8 is better than d4s like they had back in 1e.

Exactly what I was going to say, this made my day, if you complain, back to d4 (and Con bonuses capped at +2, too) !

 

[Blue Orange]

Back in the day they had 2d4 at level 1, then got 1d4 (like mages!) per level up to 18d4 at top level (this when fighters were capped at 9d10 plus 3 points per level). In 1st ed it was sort of an add-on/optional class with random thief abilities, disappeared entirely in 2nd ed, then came back in 3rd with a (more) logical d8 as it is now. Even the title is somewhat off-brand, conjuring up ideas of cloistered scholars in most parts of the world for what is, essentially, a martial artist. Monks in most cultures (including non-Shaolin Buddhist monks in China, the site of the original inspiration, which is the Shaolin monastery) are a lot closer to the stereotypical magic-user or sage than anything else.

I think it has to do, as billd91 says, with people mentally filing the paladin and ranger (and barbarian) with the fighter (who have the biggest hit dice) and the monk still being kind of 'its own thing'. If you accept the fighter-mage dialectic as sort of the organizing principle of D&D classes, with other classes falling somewhere along the spectrum, the monk is seen as 'almost at the fighter end' rather than 'at the fighter end' as it really should be.

I think OP's original argument is sound, and you could make a pretty good case for a d12, as the monk relies on their own toughness rather than armor.

 

[Undrave]

So, with that reasoning, of constantly being at warfare (albeit within your temple, monastery, dojo, school, etc), putting your body through rigorous exercise and training, why is the Monk only a d8? Would you not agree it should be a d10?

Totally agreed! the Monk is NOT solid enough to properly stand in melee and has to constantly decide between improving their abysmal damage through Ki or use their Ki to get out of dodge (or INTO dodge). It's really annoying and makes the skill floor of the class too high.

AUGH. The 5e Monk is a stupid pile of legacy features that barely synergize together.

 

[Undrave]

I think it has to do with people mentally filing the paladin, ranger, and barbarian with the fighter (who have the biggest hit dice)

Barbarians have the biggest hit dice.

 

[Slit518]

Totally agreed! the Monk is NOT solid enough to properly stand in melee and has to constantly decide between improving their abysmal damage through Ki or use their Ki to get out of dodge (or INTO dodge). It's really annoying and makes the skill floor of the class too high.


AUGH. The 5e Monk is a stupid pile of legacy features that barely synergize together.

And speaking about abysmal damage, I hate how Monk, a trained fighter only starts with d4, where as any Sloppy Joe can take the Tavern Brawler feat and deal d4 with their extremities as well... That would be like Street Kimbo Slice (not UFC trained version) vs Junior Dos Santos but both of their punching power is the same...

And not to mention Tasha's guide made it worse, because now you can start at a d6... or a d8 if you are using no armor or a shield? WTF?!? A Monk has to wait until Level 5 to do a d6, and Level 11 to do a d8... Yet, any old Sloppy Joe can do a d8 with their fists if they take the feat from Tasha's (I forget its name).

I would suggest Monk have d10 HP, add their Proficiency Modifier to Armor Class if not wearing Armor, and start with d6 to their Unarmed Attacks.

 

[Blue Orange]

Barbarians have the biggest hit dice.

Yeah, I edited that a few times but it still didn't come out right. Collectively, those groups centered around the fighter, the original martial class, have the big hit dice, but the barbarian has the biggest.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am often curious as to why the Monk, which is essentially a Martial Artist only a d8 for Hit Points?

Two reasons-

First, because when they were designing 5e, WoTC thought that they were creating a "MOOK," and not a MONK. Spelling, it's so important.

Second, they were too busy arguing over whether to make the Bard a full-caster, a double-caster, or just another subspecies of Elf to pay attention to design of the good classes.