D&D 5E Natural Weapons discrepancies?

[dave2008]

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

Because it is really hard for a humanoid to bite something in combat without first grappling / restraining it. IMO, no humanoid should be proficient in bite attacks. However, they could get prof. or advantage on bites if the target is grappled or restrained.

 

[dave2008]

Except for people, huh? Unarmed strikes are STR, not DEX. I agree, they should be either but that isn't the rule.

Again, the real issue is that because of errors in stat blocks that have since been updated in the errata, there is confusion because (since there is no strict method) players don't understand if a stat was intended or another error.

The players shouldn't know then. The characters definitely shouldn't.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That should really be true for any humanoid creature. The idea that they would bite something in combat with first grappling / restraining it in some way is silly IMO. Heck, cats don't even do that.

Just to clarify (because I either see it the other way or maybe you were typing quickly and wrote in error), you are saying it is silly for a humanoid to grapple first before biting?

You wrote "bite something in combat with first grappling / restraining" and I think you meant "without"?

Because it is really hard for a humanoid to bite something in combat without first grappling / restraining it. IMO, no humanoid should be proficient in bite attacks. However, they could get prof. or advantage on bites if the target is grappled or restrained.

Ok, that is what I was looking for. You did mean "without", not "with" in your prior post.

And I agree and I am fine with that. But, for the sake of consistency and avoiding confusion, the attack should be listed maybe like:

Bite. Melee Weapon Attack (non-proficient): +3 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 12 (2d8 + 3) piercing damage.

This would make it clear the attack bonus doesn't include proficiency and was not meant to.

 

[Esker]

Or they could just word it like they do for the vampire and say that the target has to be grappled, incapacitated, or restrained for the bite to be usable.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Or they could just word it like they do for the vampire and say that the target has to be grappled, incapacitated, or restrained for the bite to be usable.

Yep, could have just written it will only bite a paralyzed victim. Or, as we've discussed given how little difference in damage there is, they could have not even bothered to include it as an "attack" and just noted that ghasts will eat their dead victims?

 

[dave2008]

Just to clarify (because I either see it the other way or maybe you were typing quickly and wrote in error), you are saying it is silly for a humanoid to grapple first before biting?

You wrote "bite something in combat with first grappling / restraining" and I think you meant "without"?



Ok, that is what I was looking for. You did mean "without", not "with" in your prior post.

And I agree and I am fine with that. But, for the sake of consistency and avoiding confusion, the attack should be listed maybe like:

Bite. Melee Weapon Attack (non-proficient): +3 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 12 (2d8 + 3) piercing damage.

This would make it clear the attack bonus doesn't include proficiency and was not meant to.

Just to clarify (because I either see it the other way or maybe you were typing quickly and wrote in error), you are saying it is silly for a humanoid to grapple first before biting?

You wrote "bite something in combat with first grappling / restraining" and I think you meant "without"?



Ok, that is what I was looking for. You did mean "without", not "with" in your prior post.

And I agree and I am fine with that. But, for the sake of consistency and avoiding confusion, the attack should be listed maybe like:

Bite. Melee Weapon Attack (non-proficient): +3 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 12 (2d8 + 3) piercing damage.

This would make it clear the attack bonus doesn't include proficiency and was not meant to.

Yes, I typed to fast. It should be without. However, I prefer they don't put "non-proficient" in the stat block. I don't need the extra text and as an extensive homebrewer of monsters i don't want to have put it in my stat blocks.

Indeed, I actually prefer the rules on monsters to be vague with room for or requiring DM interpretation. As a DM I like to have room to define things the way I want to define them, and to not be hindered by "rules."

EDIT: Corrected my original post too - thanks!

 

[jasper]

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.....

...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? ...

...standard rules, there is inconsistency and confusion at times because of it. ..

NO WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS FUN WHEN THE PIONT is making fun of something. It was either designers intent when the monster's stats don't make sense. The DM should just worry about roll the dice and announcing the result.
So don't try to be like 3E where everything had a hard build and hard rules. If corrections are made in errata find, give the errata to the dm and let him pencil it in. But for the amount of time the ghasts are going to be in play, why worry about it?
Oh I just look at the 2018 errata. I don't see any Ghast entry.

 

[Umbran]

you can add a whimper and whine if you want.

Mod Note:

Rhetorical question - Did you honestly think this would help anyone actually accept your point? If not, then it really had no place in your response. Snark makes us feel good for a moment, but is not usually effective communication, and we tend to pay for it in acrimony. If you want a conversation to go well, you probably shouldn't include it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I’m OK with humanoids not following the same rules as monsters. Why? Because those are the monsters’ only weapons. They use them and have evolved to use them as their primary forms of attack and defense.

Most humanoids do not. We use weapons. Unless you’re extensively trained to use your feet or fists in combat, you just flail around like a wild idiot. And what do we call people in D&D who are extensively trained in unarmed combat? Monks. And do monks basically get finesse with their unarmed strikes? Sure do.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Indeed, I actually prefer the rules on monsters to be vague with room for or requiring DM interpretation. As a DM I like to have room to define things the way I want to define them, and to not be hindered by "rules."

EDIT: Corrected my original post too - thanks!

That is totally cool. When I DM I often makes changes to the monster stat block, giving them different armor or weapons, making their spellcasting modifier a point or two better, and so on.

And if the "rule" is the monster is defined as listed---great! Then we can assume everything in MM is as it should be and if I am making up a new monster I can ignore the rules PCs use to calculate attack bonuses and other things.

BUT... that isn't the case. Monsters are expected to follow the same rules (to a point, anyway) but can certainly have unique features PCs can't. All that is fine, too, if there is a justification for it.

Like you said, many mammals that bite do grapple first, and humanoids (i.e. people) generally do. But maybe for the ghast it isn't that it lack proficiency in the bite, maybe the mouth has to unhinge or something, making the attack slower and less effective, resulting in a -2 penalty on the attack roll (figured into the stat block already).