D&D 5E Black bear: wrong attack bonus?

[Pickaxe]

The attack bonus for a black bear is listed as +3. It has +2 for Strength and presumably +2 proficiency bonus, which would give +4. I don’t see any errata on this. Am I missing something?


Sent from my iPad using EN World mobile app

 

[redrick]

The brown bear also only gets +1 on top of strength modifier for its attack bonus. Seems like an example of 5e monster/NPC rules being "kinda" the same as PC rules. The table on 274 of the DMG lists appropriate attack bonuses for challenge rating. And then 4 pages on how modifying everything affects CR. Oof. But everything up until CR 2 clocks in as +3 to hit. I guess they figured, since the bear has multiattack and good damage output, not to let it go too crazy.

That said, I agree, I'd probably use the +4 to hit because it's more intuitive. I can't be bothered dealing with too many fiddly exceptions at the table, and I'm not usually staring at the MM entry when I run simple monsters.

 

[Hriston]

Under "Skills" on page 4 of the DM's Basic Rules it mentions "other modifiers" that might apply to a monster's ability check. I think a similar approach has been taken with regard to attacks. The example given is of a doubled proficiency bonus, but I think a halved proficiency bonus is also used in some cases, as I believe it has been with the bears' attacks.

 

[CapnZapp]

There are plenty of small calculation errors in the MM. I would not assume they're intentional, since that would mean a completely opaque and closed design process.

Much better and simpler to simply assume small errors were made.

I remember one VERY thorough list floating around, correcting every number that doesn't match the rules. That list was LONG.

In the end, it matters very little whether a monster has +2 or +3 (or +12 instead of +13), so I'm not sure it's worth digging up that list.

I wouldn't worry about it. Essentially, I'm saying it's fine to use the numbers as given even if you know they're slightly off.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Rhenny]

But also remember, monsters don't necessarily use the same methods of development as PCs. Therefore, make it any number you think works given that you can explain it as a unique creature that may be better or worse at combat. Not tying monster creation to pc creation is liberating and eliminates micro management and too much attention to rules.

 

[Pickaxe]

Thanks for the responses. There are some creatures with the same or lower CR and a +4 Attack bonus, though these do not have multiattack. Crocodile is an example. My assumption was that the lower the lower bonus was used to balance the extra attack, even though that seems to break the construction rules.


Sent from my iPad using EN World

 

[jgsugden]

... not the construction rules - the construction guidelines.

In the end, you want to make sure anything you design for this game is balanced. This is a situation in which they likely followed the guidelines, analyzed what the impacts were for druids and rangers, and then thought they needed to downgrade the combat abilities of the bear. And you know what? It is good they did as PCs often select this form for wildshape as is. If it were +1 to hit and +1 per attack to damage? Even more lopsided.

 

[LordEntrails]

There are no NPC construction rules. This is not 3.X. Don't get hung up on thinking their are rules for everything.

You can use the construction guidelines all you want. But you can make the stats anything you want. In the MM, Volo's etc, the stats are what they are. Therefore they cannot be "wrong". Because the only "right" is whatever they are.

 

[seebs]

There are plenty of small calculation errors in the MM. I would not assume they're intentional, since that would mean a completely opaque and closed design process.

Much better and simpler to simply assume small errors were made.

Look at the monster design rules, and note the complete lack of "add proficiency bonus to stat bonus" to determine attack mods. Your assertion that these are "calculation errors" presupposes that monster stats are "calculated" in that way, when the rules pretty clearly state that this is not generally the case. NPCs and monsters are just balanced based on things like the charts in the DMG, they aren't constructed using shared rules the way they were in 3E.

 

[CapnZapp]

Look at the monster design rules, and note the complete lack of "add proficiency bonus to stat bonus" to determine attack mods. Your assertion that these are "calculation errors" presupposes that monster stats are "calculated" in that way, when the rules pretty clearly state that this is not generally the case. NPCs and monsters are just balanced based on things like the charts in the DMG, they aren't constructed using shared rules the way they were in 3E.

You're telling me things I already know.

Most monsters skill and attack bonuses line up with their proficiency bonus.

A few don't. We don't get any explanation as to why they're excepted - we don't even get any indication an exception has occurred.

I prefer to consider these accidental rather than intentional, since otherwise the design process is completely opaque and non-predictable, and there would never be any way to hold anyone accountable for any genuine mistakes - indeed there would not even be any way to tell if a non-standard number was a mistake at all.

"A small chicken with a +20 attack bonus? No, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a mistake. They don't follow rules like in 3E." Yeah, that's just BS.

Now, before you reply, let me just repeat what I wrote above:

I wouldn't worry about it. Essentially, I'm saying it's fine to use the numbers as given even if you know they're slightly off.