D&D 5E Natural Weapons discrepancies?

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

No idea about the ghast's bite though. That does seem pretty weird... As it is, I guess they can choose to make a slightly more damaging attack with a slightly lower chance to hit, which I guess if you're facing someone with a low AC and high CON save (or with a low AC and very few HP) might be slightly more effective?

The ghast is set up to encourage them to attack with their claws untill the target is paralyzed, at which point they can Bite with advantage and feed on the victim.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The ghast is set up to encourage them to attack with their claws untill the target is paralyzed, at which point they can Bite with advantage and feed on the victim.

The Ghast is set up to never use its bite as written. If it can bite with advantage, it can continue to use its claws with advantage. Given the difference in attack bonuses and damage, the lower attack bonus is offset by the increased damage, making the attacks evenly effective for the most part. However, the claws have the paralysis rider and even if a victim makes their save, it forces them to make new ones. Thus, the claws are better attacks regardless.

If the Ghast also had +5 on the attack for the bite (as it should IMO to keep rules consistent), then the increased potential damage is appealing and is balanced out against the paralysis rider of the claws.

EDIT: Of course you can always assume the Ghast is not proficient in its bite (as indicated by the +3 bonus), but then why bother having it? It can kill its victim with the claws and eat it afterwards without issue, so listing it as a valid attack action is pretty pointless as is.

 

[Esker]

The Ghast is set up to never use its bite as written. If it can bite with advantage, it can continue to use its claws with advantage. Given the difference in attack bonuses and damage, the lower attack bonus is offset by the increased damage, making the attacks evenly effective for the most part. However, the claws have the paralysis rider and even if a victim makes their save, it forces them to make new ones. Thus, the claws are better attacks regardless.

If the Ghast also had +5 on the attack for the bite (as it should IMO to keep rules consistent), then the increased potential damage is appealing and is balanced out against the paralysis rider of the claws.

If the target is already paralyzed, so that hits are automatically crits, then the bite does slightly more damage on average against AC 17 or below. But yeah, it's not much more than a one point difference.

 

[Esker]

EDIT: Of course you can always assume the Ghast is not proficient in its bite (as indicated by the +3 bonus), but then why bother having it? It can kill its victim with the claws and eat it afterwards without issue, so listing it as a valid attack action is pretty pointless as is.

Maybe the Ghast's massive tongue provides half-cover from its bite

 

[DND_Reborn]

If the target is already paralyzed, so that hits are automatically crits, then the bite does slightly more damage on average against AC 17 or below. But yeah, it's not much more than a one point difference.

Exactly, and since the claws continue to have the paralysis rider, there really isn't much point in biting unless the chance of hitting are better (+5 vs. +3) or the damage is increased more (the roughly one point isn't worth the chance of continued paralysis IMO).

 

[Esker]

Exactly, and since the claws continue to have the paralysis rider, there really isn't much point in biting unless the chance of hitting are better (+5 vs. +3) or the damage is increased more (the roughly one point isn't worth the chance of continued paralysis IMO).

If they're already paralyzed then clawing them again doesn't do anything, except I guess extend the maximum duration. But it's not like they're going to fail their save for the full minute anyway.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If they're already paralyzed then clawing them again doesn't do anything, except I guess extend the maximum duration. But it's not like they're going to fail their save for the full minute anyway.

Well, it depends on how you see the "story" of the game unfold. I could understand cruel ghasts enjoying to feed on their victims while they are still alive and paralyzed maybe.

On the other hand, if the DM decides the ghasts aren't aware of a successful save until the victim's next turn when they can act, the ghast would be biting agaisnt an non-paralyzed victim. After the victim acts, the ghast would return to its claws, but by then the victim might fight back enough to kill it.

So, it makes more sense for me for ghasts to never risk it and always attack with the paralysis rider until the victim has 0 hp.

 

[jasper]

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).

Because MONSTERS AND NPC ARE NOT BUILT THE SAME WAY AS PCS. They are not built on the same platform as pcs. They don't use the same formulas as pcs. They are created to give a challenge to the pcs. So things are adjusted to their stats, to hit bonus etc to challenge the pcs.
Or to make it simple. "MONSTERS CHEAT" or OFFICAL DM REPLY, "I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DESIGNERS DID THIS!" you can add a whimper and whine if you want.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Because MONSTERS AND NPC ARE NOT BUILT THE SAME WAY AS PCS. They are not built on the same platform as pcs. They don't use the same formulas as pcs. They are created to give a challenge to the pcs. So things are adjusted to their stats, to hit bonus etc to challenge the pcs.
Or to make it simple. "MONSTERS CHEAT" or OFFICAL DM REPLY, "I DON'T KNOW WHY THE DESIGNERS DID THIS!" you can add a whimper and whine if you want.

WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS ANNOYING, RIGHT? It doesn't really help get your point across, FYI.

Seriously though, yeah they aren't built the same, but they do (or should I must say) follow the same rules. Otherwise, just give them values and don't worry about it. But that isn't how they were made, is it? We understand proficiency and ability modifier combine for attack bonus. This is true in PCs and monsters.

Now, as others have voiced some natural attacks might be "finesse" and others aren't, etc. which is a valid point. Some natural attacks might not be proficient (like the Ghast's bite), which doesn't make a lot of sense to me but I can accept it if that was the designers' intent.

Again, the reason all this arose were errors in the MM that made it into the errata. When a new DM sees ghasts for example, is the listing for Bite an error or was it intentional? We won't know unless someone tweets about it, etc. Now, if they either said "everything is correct and is just the way we intended it to be for balance, etc." one would know any strange or unusual listing was intended as such; and if they said "everything is designed by these rules, so if anything doesn't follow them, it is in error" one would know a listing such as the ghast bite was probably an error.

But, by hand-waving some things and having most things follow standard rules, there is inconsistency and confusion at times because of it. Like other things in 5E (and to be fair in prior editions as well), clearer information would have met such issues head-on.

 

[dave2008]

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.

That should really be true for any humanoid creature. The idea that they would bite something in combat without first grappling / restraining it in some way is silly IMO. Heck, cats don't even do that.