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

[Nefermandias]

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.

Combat is the primary way you can get killed and usually takes a large portion of table time in any given game session. I am a firm believer that all classes should be able to contribute to it in equal footing. We are going to have to agree to disagree in this one.

Now, on the subject of 5e Sneak Attack being "easy mode", I would like to remind you people that compared to 3e, it's not really much easier. Flanking wasn't really much more difficult than just having an ally adjacent to the target. Besides, Sneak Attacks used to be A LOT more powerful since rogues could easily make a dual wielding full attack for a ridiculous amount of d6s. (Yes, sneak attack wasn't once per turn back in 3e)

 

[Lyxen]

Combat is the primary way you can get killed and usually takes a large portion of table time in any given game session.

And no, this premise is certainly not true at our tables. We frequently have full evenings without a single fight, and even if we have one ore sometimes many, they don't take up the majority of our time.

I am a firm believer that all classes should be able to contribute to it in equal footing.

Equal footing does not mean equal damage, and contribution to combat is not measure in DPR, at least at our tables.

We are going to have to agree to disagree in this one.

Very probably in the end, yes.

Now, on the subject of 5e Sneak Attack being "easy mode", I would like to remind you people that compared to 3e, it's not really much easier. Flanking wasn't really much more difficult than just having an ally adjacent to the target.

Actually, it was, because the zones of control where much more rigid, it was way harder to get to the other side of an opponent when you took AoO just for moving around him. And I'm not going into the detail of the number of creatures simply immune to sneak...

Besides, Sneak Attacks used to be A LOT more powerful since rogues could easily make a dual wielding full attack for a ridiculous amount of d6s. (Yes, sneak attack wasn't once per turn back in 3e)

Subsequent attacks had more difficulty in hitting, for once, and with the limitations above, it sort of compensated. It does not exclude the lack of skill needed in 5e. Backstab was even more powerful when done right, but it was even harder to pull off.

Note that I'm not complaining about easy mode in general, the intent of the game is to have fun, but I'm pointing out that dealing large amount of damage is only fun to some people, not to everyone.

 

[Nefermandias]

And no, this premise is certainly not true at our tables. We frequently have full evenings without a single fight, and even if we have one ore sometimes many, they don't take up the majority of our time.



Equal footing does not mean equal damage, and contribution to combat is not measure in DPR, at least at our tables.



Very probably in the end, yes.



Actually, it was, because the zones of control where much more rigid, it was way harder to get to the other side of an opponent when you took AoO just for moving around him. And I'm not going into the detail of the number of creatures simply immune to sneak...



Subsequent attacks had more difficulty in hitting, for once, and with the limitations above, it sort of compensated. It does not exclude the lack of skill needed in 5e. Backstab was even more powerful when done right, but it was even harder to pull off.

Note that I'm not complaining about easy mode in general, the intent of the game is to have fun, but I'm pointing out that dealing large amount of damage is only fun to some people, not to everyone.

Yes, you would provoke an Opportunity Attack for trying to circle the opponent, but if we are talking about medium creatures, all you had to do was a 5 ft step to flank them most of the time. At worst, you would have to delay your action and wait for the fighter to make their 5 ft step first. I know this because I've played twice a week, religiously for the whole course of the edition from 2000 through 2008, when we picked 4e.

I knew you'd bring the diminishing BAB into question, but in practice, I assure you it wasn't even remotely a problem. Player's attack scaled so much faster than monsters AC that usually they would still hit the third attack even on a roll of 5. Also, it was really easy to just get your hands in a magic weapon that ignored armor bonuses, so you would effectively being targeting the opponent's touch AC (10+Dex Mod).

Speaking of touch AC, one of the easiest and cheesiest way to abuse Sneak Attack in 3.5 was picking the dual wand feats from Complete Arcane and wielding two Orb (any element) wands. Combining that with Major Invisibility would give you two really powerful ranged touch attacks against a flat footed AC (basically, 10). Each shot would also benefit from Sneak Attck and be able to crit.

Nah, man... I was there. You won't convince me.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, you would provoke an Opportunity Attack for trying to circle the opponent, but if we are talking about medium creatures, all you had to do was a 5 ft step to flank them most of the time. At worst, you would have to delay your action and wait for the fighter to make their 5 ft step first. I know this because I've played twice a week, religiously for the whole course of the edition from 2000 through 2008, when we picked 4e.

I knew you'd bring the diminishing BAB into question, but in practice, I assure you it wasn't even remotely a problem. Player's attack scaled so much faster than monsters AC that usually they would still hit the third attack even on a roll of 5. Also, it was really easy to just get your hands in a magic weapon that ignored armor bonuses, so you would effectively being targeting the opponent's touch AC (10+Dex Mod).

Speaking of touch AC, one of the easiest and cheesiest way to abuse Sneak Attack in 3.5 was picking the dual wand feats from Complete Arcane and wielding two Orb (any element) wands. Combining that with Major Invisibility would give you two really powerful ranged touch attacks against a flat footed AC (basically, 10). Each shot would also benefit from Sneak Attck and be able to crit.

Nah, man... I was there. You won't convince me.

I was there too, and no, you could not take 5 foot steps if you had already moved, for example, and flanking required you to be on the complete opposite side. And that was assuming that the adversary was stupid enough to be medium and leave you to attack two against one. And if the AC of the monsters did not scale more rapidly than your BAB as a rogue (or even worse as a multiclass, seeing the combination that you were using), the DM was doing something wrong. Finally no, it was not easy to get your hands on weapons ignoring armor bonuses, or to use all stupid combinations that the edition allowed, as these were only options. Some campaigns (actually all I participated in) were more controlled than this and avoided the utter silliness of pun-pun and others. And DMs played the opposition carefully, including countermeasures to sneak attack being too easy. I'm not going to convince you for sure, but there were lots of different ways to play, as usual, including (once more) games in which combat was really infrequent.

 

[Nefermandias]

I was there too, and no, you could not take 5 foot steps if you had already moved, for example, and flanking required you to be on the complete opposite side. And that was assuming that the adversary was stupid enough to be medium and leave you to attack two against one. And if the AC of the monsters did not scale more rapidly than your BAB as a rogue (or even worse as a multiclass, seeing the combination that you were using), the DM was doing something wrong. Finally no, it was not easy to get your hands on weapons ignoring armor bonuses, or to use all stupid combinations that the edition allowed, as these were only options. Some campaigns (actually all I participated in) were more controlled than this and avoided the utter silliness of pun-pun and others. And DMs played the opposition carefully, including countermeasures to sneak attack being too easy. I'm not going to convince you for sure, but there were lots of different ways to play, as usual, including (once more) games in which combat was really infrequent.

Of course you could not take the 5ft step on the same turn you used your move action to close in. I never said you could. You also ignored that I specifically mentioned delaying your action and wait for your melee allies to get in position first.

And no, crafting magic itens were not "optional" as it was easily achieved by taking crafting feats. Feats were not optional.

You suggesting the DM was doing something wrong is frankly insulting, as I was the DM for the whole run. Clearly, our experiences were different and that's okay. Of course, if you as a DM makes things scarce or ban the crafting of magic items, things are going to play very differently, but that has nothing to do with RAW.

 

[Lyxen]

Of course you could not take the 5ft step on the same turn you used your move action to close in. I never said you could. You also ignored that I specifically mentioned delaying your action and wait for your melee allies to get in position first.

Even assuming that the adversary did nothing in between, it still did not allow you a sneak attack every round, which is really the norm in 5e.

And no, crafting magic itens were not "optional" as it was easily achieved by taking crafting feats. Feats were not optional.

But the resources and the downtime for it were. And the pre-requesites were not negligible. Rogues could not craft these things, so it was assuming that someone in the party could, and that he had the time and resources to do that for someone else in the group.

You suggesting the DM was doing something wrong is frankly insulting, as I was the DM for the whole run. Clearly, our experiences were different and that's okay. Of course, if you as a DM makes things scarce or ban the crafting of magic items, things are going to play very differently, but that has nothing to do with RAW.

No, it does not, but suggesting that AC did not rise as quickly as a Rogue's BAB is strange...

 

[Nefermandias]

Even assuming that the adversary did nothing in between, it still did not allow you a sneak attack every round,

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.

 

[billd91]

And no, crafting magic itens were not "optional" as it was easily achieved by taking crafting feats. Feats were not optional.

Oh, of course creating magic items was optional. Just like any other campaign option in D&D. The item creation feats were easy to ignore within or excise from a campaign.

 

[billd91]

Actually, it was, because the zones of control where much more rigid, it was way harder to get to the other side of an opponent when you took AoO just for moving around him. And I'm not going into the detail of the number of creatures simply immune to sneak...

Yeah, lots of things were immune to sneak attack - too many as thematic adventures/APs like Age of Worms tended to expose.

 

[Nefermandias]

Oh, of course creating magic items was optional. Just like any other campaign option in D&D. The item creation feats were easy to ignore within or excise from a campaign.

Optional in the same sense that anything is optional in any TTRPG, but that's a bit pedantic. I was just making the point that sneak attack used to be more powerful back in third edition.

And even though elementals, contracts, undead and ooze were immune to it, most of the enemies a rogue would fight in the course of it's adventuring career would be humanoids, beasts or magical beats anyway.