D&D 5E Natural Weapons discrepancies?

[DND_Reborn]

Don't know if this is addressed anywhere, but I didn't see it in the MM errata.

Why are some creatures natural weapon attacks considered STR and others are DEX?

For example, a wolf has STR 12 and DEX 15, its attack is:
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: (2d4 + 2) piercing damage.

Where as a dire wolf has STR 17 and DEX 15, with its attack as:
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: (2d6 + 3) piercing damage.

Both also carry the knock prone rider as well.

But, this means the wolf is using DEX as where the dire wolf is using STR. You see this in both the attack bonus as the damage bonus.

My question is why?

Is this yet another way in which 5E has its inconsistencies?

I consider these natural attacks equivalent to unarmed strikes in a way and of course unarmed strikes use STR, not DEX (unless you are a monk or something...). A Bite attack is hardly anything akin to a finesse weapon so why use DEX for a wolf but STR for a dire wolf (just a large wolf really)?

Yeah, I know some people will reply these are monsters yadda yadda yadda and don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, blah blah blah. But as a DM if I am making one monster and then another, what justifcation can I have to using STR in one case but DEX in, practically, an identical case?

Have these types of issues been addressed anywhere?

EDIT:

The reason I am posting about this is because new players in our group don't understand that "the DM can design things how they want" and often wonder is it an error in the stat block or on purpose? The Ghast bite as is mentioned below: intentional or an error? The wolf bite: intentional or an error? There are a lot of errors in the MM that have been fixed in the errata so wondering if there are still more is understandable, especially when the printed books our group bought within the last year still have those errors. This also came up when some party members got riding horses but one a warhorse (both stat blocks have errors BTW in the errata).

 

[ccs]

If there's a reason it's probably to highlight that a dire wolf is a larger stronger beast that relies upon brute force. Vs the ordinary wolf that's more agile.

But your real problem is that your just stirring the pot looking for a problem where there is none.

What justification can you give for making creatures different?
How about the best one: "Because I'm the DM & that's how I decided to represent them."

 

[RogueJK]

I don't believe there's ever been a concrete explanation for this by the designers, other than offhand remarks like "some monsters have quirks like that". However, they have explicitly clarified through Sage Advice that not all monsters can choose between STR and DEX on their natural weapons.

So if you're designing a new monster, it's solely left up to your discretion.

Another quirk you'll run across is that some monsters don't add their proficiency bonus to some of their natural weapon attacks. Look at a Ghast, which has +3 for Bite but +5 for Claw. And their STR/DEX are both +3, so it's not because they're using different stats for the two attacks.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But your real problem is that your just stirring the pot looking for a problem where there is none.

What justification can you give for making creatures different?
How about the best one: "Because I'm the DM & that's how I decided to represent them."

This is pretty much the same as a blah blah blah response so thanks for--well--nothing.

 

[cmad1977]

Not issues.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't believe there's ever been a concrete explanation for this by the designers, other than offhand remarks like "some monsters have quirks like that". However, they have explicitly clarified through Sage Advice that not all monsters can choose between STR and DEX on their natural weapons.

So if you're designing a new monster, it's solely left up to your discretion.

Another quirk you'll run across is that some monsters don't add their proficiency bonus to some of their natural weapon attacks. Look at a Ghast, which has +3 for Bite but +5 for Claw. And their STR/DEX are both +3, so it's not because they're using different stats for the two attacks.

Yeah, I figured it was just this sort of stuff again. I really don't know why they would do things this way when following consistent rules/design schema would result in perfectly good monsters.

Why make the Ghast bite less likely to hit? It it was also +5 it would work just as well really.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not issues.

This is pretty much the same as a blah blah blah response so thanks for--well--nothing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Don't know if this is addressed anywhere, but I didn't see it in the MM errata.

Why are some creatures natural weapon attacks considered STR and others are DEX?

For example, a wolf has STR 12 and DEX 15, its attack is:
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: (2d4 + 2) piercing damage.

Where as a dire wolf has STR 17 and DEX 15, with its attack as:
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: (2d6 + 3) piercing damage.

Both also carry the knock prone rider as well.

But, this means the wolf is using DEX as where the dire wolf is using STR. You see this in both the attack bonus as the damage bonus.

My question is why?

Well, because the wolf has higher DEX and the dire wolf has higher STR. Think of it like the wolf’s Bite having Finesse while the dire-wolf’s doesn’t (or maybe it does and the dire-wolf chooses to use STR because that gives it a better attack and damage bonus.

Is this yet another way in which 5E has its inconsistencies?

I don’t see how it’s inconsistent. A wolf’s Bite is not the same attack as a dire wolf’s Bite, which is not the same attack as a humanoid’s Unarmed Strike. It’s no more inconsistent for them to key off different abilities than it is for them to have different damage dice.

I consider these natural attacks equivalent to unarmed strikes in a way and of course unarmed strikes use STR, not DEX (unless you are a monk or something...). A Bite attack is hardly anything akin to a finesse weapon so why use DEX for a wolf but STR for a dire wolf (just a large wolf really)?

So you’re willing to accept that a wolf’s Bite is equivalent to a humanoid’s Unarmed Strike, you’re willing to accept that a wolf’s Bite has a different damage die than a humanoid’s Unarmed Strike, you’re willing to accept that a wolf’s Bite has a different damage die than a dire wolf’s Bite, you’re willing to accept that some humanoids’ Unarmed Strikes have different damage dice than other humanoids’ Unarmed Strikes (e.g. monks, tavern brawlers, etc.), AND you’re willing to accept that some humanoids’ Unarmed Strikes key off DEX instead of STR (again, monks)... But the idea that wolves’ Bites might key off DEX is a bridge too far? That seems like a very arbitrary line to draw.

Yeah, I know some people will reply these are monsters yadda yadda yadda and don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, blah blah blah. But as a DM if I am making one monster and then another, what justifcation can I have to using STR in one case but DEX in, practically, an identical case?

It’s not even a matter of monsters not having to follow the same rules as PCs. There’s no rule being broken here. There is precedent for melee attacks, even unarmed melee attacks, that key off DEX. The wolf’s Bite attack just happens to be one such attack.

If you need a guideline to follow when designing your own monsters, here’s what the trend appears to be in the monster manual: If a monster uses a weapon, its attacks with that weapon follow the same rules as when PCs attack with the same weapon.* If a monster has an attack that uses part of its body (i.e. a “natural weapon”), that attack is unique to the creature. You can give it whatever damage die you feel is appropriate, and it keys off your choice of the creature’s STR or DEX. Humanoid monsters generally don’t have Unarmed Strike listed in their stat blocks, but in the case that you want a humanoid monster to make an Unarmed Strike, it should probably follow the same rules as when a PC makes an Unarmed Strike.

*except in the case of two-weapon fighting, which seems to be handled via Multiattack instead of the two-weapon fighting rules. This is an inconsistency that bothers me more than it probably should.

 

[Fenris-77]

If you've seen video of wolves hunting it might not seem so weird that they picked DEX. In any given case they have to pick either DEX or STR to define attacks and damage. The issue, IMO, is that most cases, described in 'real world terms', are a combination of both and thus a lot of the binary choices seem off to one degree or another.

 

[Esker]

*except in the case of two-weapon fighting, which seems to be handled via Multiattack instead of the two-weapon fighting rules. This is an inconsistency that bothers me more than it probably should.

Are there instances of monsters using two weapon fighting that have multiattack and also separate bonus actions they can use? If not it's equivalent to just saying they have the TWF fighting style, but simpler to manage as a DM than treating one of the attacks as a bonus action.