log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Slit518

Explorer
I'm personally not a fan of the idea of the monk getting d10 hit die. They're not meant to be frontline tanks. They're not meant to get hit often at all. Rogues don't get d10s either.
I would say because Rogues don't train that hard in terms of taking physical damage or being physically reliant. They operate from the shadows without hopes of you knowing they were there. They rely on Sneak Attacks, catching someone unaware. Yes, they can be played toe-to-toe, but if you're a Burglar or a Thief or an Assassin for example, you don't want to charge up in the field of battle and fight with a fully armored Knight. Though, game wise it is unavoidable.

Where as Monks/Martial Artists for example would often train with limited to no gear to take on geared up opponents. Let's take the Taekkyon for example, an early Korean martial art used to take down armed Japanese opponents. Early Taekwondo with all of its kicks and splendor was used to take Warriors off of their horses. Thy came right into battle, empty handed, sometimes with farmer's tools as weapons, but trained to take on fully equipped soldiers.

Engage, Disarm, Neutralize.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Wasn't the monk the class in PF 1e that got the biggest rewrite when it went unchained, among other things getting d10 and being more flexible with the attacks?

I am great with a d10 Ki (or inner power or whatnot) monk like character (by whatever name).

The one I'm not a fan of is someone who wants a brawler or non-mystical monk who is just as effective in most combat situations as the person with choice of armor, melee weapon, and missile weapon.

Why would anyone associate the Monk or Rogue with a frontline toe-to-toe Fighter?
Who creates this expectation as it doesn't exist in the inspirational literature (books, movies, etc) nor in the rules

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon?
 
Last edited:

Frozen_Heart

Adventurer
I definitely find it harder to justify a 'sterotypical' monk in a vanilla medieval european aesthetic campaign. Maybe a christian aesthetic monk with the staff and tonsure? I do think the class name makes them stand out compared to the other classes.

I've basically removed all monk lore from the character I've got ready to go. They're an actor, entertainer, and dancer. And their skills come from that, rather than being an actual 'monk'.
 


Greg K

Hero
I'm against that since what most Fighters do is Martial Arts too. Though they could have used Mystic for Monk, but it's been taken by more spellcasting related classes (Psion in 5e Alpha test, and a divine caster in 3e).
I agree FIghters do Martial Arts too. I never said that I would not let them do martial arts. My ideal martial artist class would be a light armored/no armored battlemaster type class that does Western Pugilists (their bouts often included rounds of swordsmanship, knife fighting, and clubs, in addition to many unarmed techniques prior to the developments that eventually lead to Queesnbury rules), , swashbuckling swordsmen, wuxia swordsmen, etc. in addition to what we think of martial artists (many styles include weapons training).
Fighters would also be able to learn unarmed techniques (although many of the battlemaster maneuvers can apply to unarmed as well)
 

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
Why would anyone associate the Monk or Rogue with a frontline toe-to-toe Fighter?
Who creates this expectation as it doesn't exist in the inspirational literature (books, movies, etc) nor in the rules
But the "Shaolin warrior monk" is the fundamental trope, isn't it?
I could be misremembering, but I believe the story of the foundation of their monastic practice-- the martial arts, the meditation, the discipline, the body-hardening-- is all about learning to be tough warriors. They took that up because their monastery had been constantly ravaged by bandits and enemy soldiers. They had to learn to fight because they were isolated and no one was fighting their battles for them.
 

Sshaolin warrior monks is the fundamental trope, isn't it?
I could be misremembering, but I believe the story of the foundation of their monastic practice-- the martial arts, the meditation, the discipline, the body-hardening-- is precisely about learning to be tough warriors. They took that up because their monastery had been constantly ravaged by bandits and enemy soldiers. They had to learn to fight because they were isolated and no one was fighting their battles for them.
Sure thing!

None of the myths around them are the trope of a static fighter (the inspiration for fighters and paladins both)
 

Undrave

Hero
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.
And Flurry of Blow shouldn't cost Ki after a certain level.
I'm personally not a fan of the idea of the monk getting d10 hit die. They're not meant to be frontline tanks. They're not meant to get hit often at all. Rogues don't get d10s either.
The Rogue doesn't need to sacrifice Sneak Attack to Disengage as a bonus action.
Is the skill floor too high .... or is your skill too low?

MasterOfTheFlyingGuillotine01-FungShengWuChi-04-400-sg.gif
Compared to any other class the Monk requires too much system mastery and a specific stat line to not get wasted by a single bad hit or bad roll.
Why would anyone associate the Monk or Rogue with a frontline toe-to-toe Fighter?
Who creates this expectation as it doesn't exist in the inspirational literature (books, movies, etc) nor in the rules
The 4e Rogue was a Striker capable of doing great damage while being slippery.

The Monk is a martial artist! Have you seen a kung fu hero way lay an entire room of minions by themselves?!
 


tomBitonti

Adventurer
Could it be the difference between a “brute” strength and mass based, armored, martial weapon wielding fighter and the more agile, technique based, unarmed or lightly armed, un-armed or lightly armed fighter?

Also, rogues (ninjas, at least) have excruciating martial training. Climbing; holding stillness.

TomB
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer
On second though … there are lots of strength and mass based martial artists. With training that emphasizes toughness and endurance. I’m thinking a pure martial artist ought to be a kind of fighter, with monk reserved for a mystic warrior.
TomB
 

Could it be the difference between a “brute” strength and mass based, armored, martial weapon wielding fighter and the more agile, technique based, unarmed or lightly armed, un-armed or lightly armed fighter?

This was always my understanding. The Barbarian has a bigger HD than the Fighter, because he's expected to take heavy blows and shrug them off. The Monk has a smaller HD, because he's supposed to be nimble and avoid blows instead of taking them head on.

Cool in theory. Stressful in practice.
 

Slit518

Explorer
Could it be the difference between a “brute” strength and mass based, armored, martial weapon wielding fighter and the more agile, technique based, unarmed or lightly armed, un-armed or lightly armed fighter?

TomB
No, because you can be a Fighter with Leather Armor and a Rapier and still have more beefy HP.

Also, think of large folks like Nathan Jones; Dan "the Beast" Severn; Brock Lesnar; Cain Valasquez, etc.
They're large, most of them agile, and would fit under this Monk/Martial Artist category.

I mean Brock Lesnar had to cut down to 265 for example, and is very agile for a Heavyweight, said to move like a Middleweight. That is an 80 pound difference!

Whoops! I missed your 2nd part. I don't know, I like Monk turned into Martial Artist and divided into Disciplines instead of just being a Fighter sub-category.
 

Slit518

Explorer
P.S.

I will admit, I am being a bit of a hypocrite, because in the setting I am creating Martial Artists are d8 instead of the d10 I am advocating for.

I have no good reason, except the fact that I have 12 classes -- 3 which are d10 HP, 3 which are d8 HP, and 3 which are d6 HP, the Martial Artist falling into the d8 category.

I guess I just like things a certain wait, I might have a weird thing with numbers :oops:
 

Arilyn

Hero
This was always my understanding. The Barbarian has a bigger HD than the Fighter, because he's expected to take heavy blows and shrug them off. The Monk has a smaller HD, because he's supposed to be nimble and avoid blows instead of taking them head on.

Cool in theory. Stressful in practice.
Yep. They should be harder to hit in order to fit the nimble warrior avoiding blows, but they often end up with a mediocre armour class.
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer
I’m thinking there is a bit of overlapping function. Looking back to 3.5e, a fighter could get extra HP with the toughness feat. Or by putting more points on Con. Which ought to have meant dropping a fighter’s base HP to d8. Or, the base fighter should have d8 base and receive improved toughness as a bonus feat at first level. Or as part one of several starting packages, in the same way that Rangers did.
TomB
 


Icarii

Villager
I think its odd they have a D8 too. Sure, you want them to be more nimble, but their defenses are already going to be lower without the usual armor and such. I came up with a rework idea that includes them having a D10 as well as some improved defensive options, including the choice to redirect melee attacks as a "signature technique" separate to their projectile catching. Y'all should check it out!

 

Undrave

Hero
Could it be the difference between a “brute” strength and mass based, armored, martial weapon wielding fighter and the more agile, technique based, unarmed or lightly armed, un-armed or lightly armed fighter?

Also, rogues (ninjas, at least) have excruciating martial training. Climbing; holding stillness.

TomB
There's a bit of a bias (possibly even racist undertones) with the idea that a nimble martial artist isn't "strong": that kind of speed requires powerful muscles just the same.
Yep. They should be harder to hit in order to fit the nimble warrior avoiding blows, but they often end up with a mediocre armour class.
Yup. Monks have bad AC and bad HP and they're too MAD to be good at either.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top