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

[ECMO3]

The die itself only makes a small difference in total hit points and d8 does not indicate low hit points.

Not only is the difference small it is not even always negative.

Considering the distribution 17% of 10th level Monks will have as many or MORE hps than a 10th level fighter with the same constitution. That is assuming you take max hps at 1st level, if you roll at 1st level too that number goes up to 20%.

So it is very possible for your d8 monk to have MORE hps than your d10 fighter.

Right now I am playing a level 8 Wizard, level 4 Rogue with a 13 constitution and 81 hps. I rolled 61hps on 8d6 and 3d8 or an average of 5.5 per roll and remember most of these were d6s

At the other extreme, I was DM for a guy who was a 8th level fighter 4th level assassin who had 35hps.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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,

FYI, Monks did make a semi-come back in 2e...but it was in "The Scarlet Brotherhood" book for Greyhawk. The Scarlet Brotherhood is an organization of Suloise-Supremacist Monk/Assassins who use diplomacy, contracts, intimidation and, obviously, assassination, as a means to an end. They are a bit of a 'big thing' in Greyhawk (as far as anything is "big" in the Flanaess), so when 2e came out and they were all reduced to "just fighters and thieves being meanies" it kind of sucked the life out of them. I don't think any Greyhawk DM liked or accepted that (none I've ever heard about anyway), and so... they put out "The Scarlet Brotherhood" sourcebook that included the new Monk AND Assassin Classes (because, another FYI, Assassin was the other class they killed off when they went to 2e).

For me, I let my players use "Monk" classes from either the PHB, the "Monk" class from a Dragon Magazine (Best of..., the gold one iirc, "He's got a Lot to Kick about!" was the article), or the "Monk" class from Oriental Adventures (with the additional MA schools from another Dragon Magazine). The PHB Monk, if someone chooses, are all Psionic, however....so there is that.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[billd91]

Frankly, Dodge should have been a reaction by default. No one ever uses it because you have to give up your attack (which advances your goals) for a chance to avoid being hit (which doesn’t). It should be a reaction you can take in response to an attack, but makes it so you can’t use an action on your next turn. Then let monks spend a Ki point when they dodge to retain their action on their next turn.

Ugh, no. Reactive dodging has been factored into AC since the early days. It doesn’t need the boost.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ugh, no. Reactive dodging has been factored into AC since the early days. It doesn’t need the boost.

I’m just saying, if you want people to use the Dodge action, that’s how you do it.

 

[ECMO3]

I’m just saying, if you want people to use the Dodge action, that’s how you do it.

I don't know if I agree. Players, especially Wizards and Monks use dodge pretty frequently in my games (Wizards when concentrating on something like sickening radiance).

NPCs, familiars and mounts use dodge a lot.

As DM I will have monsters in a large battle take dodge to nerf a sneak attack if I know who the Rogue will want to attack or if he is only positioned to attack one or two enemies easily. This can be really, really effective at either taking away the Rogue's SA completely or make him dash across the battlefield and end his turn in area he can get easily counterattacked instead of kiting in and out of danger.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know if I agree. Players, especially Wizards and Monks use dodge pretty frequently in my games (Wizards when concentrating on something like sickening radiance).

I haven’t seen this myself. Monks (as we’ve been discussing) would rather use Flurry of Blows than dodge, and everyone else would rather either Attack, Cast a Spell, or Ready an action to do one of those things.

NPCs, familiars and mounts use dodge a lot.

Sure, but I’m talking about PCs.

As DM I will have monsters in a large battle take dodge to nerf a sneak attack if I know who the Rogue will want to attack or if he is only positioned to attack one or two enemies easily. This can be really, really effective at either taking away the Rogue's SA completely or make him dash across the battlefield and end his turn in area he can get easily counterattacked instead of kiting in and out of danger.

Oh that’s a nifty trick! I had never thought of that.

 

[Mirtek]

It would be okay for them to have smaller HP pool if they could dish a lot of damage at-will.

It's really frustrating when a new player choses to play as a monk or rogue thinking they're going to be amazingly effective in combat just to be severely outperformed by the fighter and barbarian both in terms of damage and durability.

Then they should cut down their mobility and other class features.

Monks are not supposed to outperform fighters and barbarians.

They trade combat progress for other stuff

 

[Nefermandias]

Seriously, Dungeon Masters, why all the hate for Sneak Attack? What did Sneak Attack do to you to deserve so much effort to disable it?

 

[Nefermandias]

Then they should cut down their mobility and other class features.

Monks are not supposed to outperform fighters and barbarians.

They trade combat progress for other stuff

I don't know what monks are "supposed" to do, I was just mentioning my experience observing that kind of character in the hands of new players.

That said, I don't believe that "mobility and other class features" should be an excuse for being outclassed in combat by other characters.

Utility is a meme anyway, but if you are really willing to make this argument, then take a look on how monks fare against wizards in the utility department.

 

[Lyxen]

Seriously, Dungeon Masters, why all the hate for Sneak Attack? What did Sneak Attack do to you to deserve so much effort to disable it?

I don't hate sneak attack, I would just like to point out that, like a lot of things in the game, it went into full "easy mode", as it went from something that took skill to use (backstab) to something that still took some skill (3e implementation with its restrictions) to something that is so basic that it has to be included in every round so that the rogue meets its DPR objective. Having clever adversaries noticing a rogue and taking appropriate countermeasures is also something that I do as well, in particular because it would be really stupid for most monsters to ignore the shifty character who you know is just waiting for an opportunity to sink his dagger into your kidneys...

After that I agree that for both rogues and monks other pillars of the game should also be a compensation for maybe slightly less efficiency in frontal combat than other martial classes. I find it a bit annoying that people don't care about their other advantages but still want to be the equal to the best in others' areas of expertise.