D&D 5E Natural Weapons discrepancies?

[DND_Reborn]

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.

In comparing unarmed strikes by humanoids to natural weapons, I completely agree that without some training it makes sense for humanoids to defeault to STR only. But, the problem is, people are proficient in unarmed strikes now. It wasn't always the case until the new printings, as unarmed strikes used to be considered simple weapons (and most notably sorcerers and wizards were not proficient then). I think the designers went too far in the changes, personally.

Keeping proficiency in unarmed strikes its own "thing" would mean certain classes would start with it, others might get it as part of a subclass, and others might pick it up through a feat such as tavern brawler, etc. or multiclassing.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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.

Ghasts are monsters out of the horror genre, and part of what makes them horrifying is how they start eating their victims while the fight is still going on around them. They're undead monsters, winning the fight or self preservation doesn't mean anything to them, only satisfying their unnatural, unending hunger.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

This. Players should NEVER see a monster's stat block. This is all stuff that belongs behind the DM's curtain.

 

[Esker]

This. Players should NEVER see a monster's stat block. This is all stuff that belongs behind the DM's curtain.

Unless they're druids, or necromancers, or summoners, or have a familiar.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This. Players should NEVER see a monster's stat block. This is all stuff that belongs behind the DM's curtain.

What @Esker said above.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ghasts are monsters out of the horror genre, and part of what makes them horrifying is how they start eating their victims while the fight is still going on around them. They're undead monsters, winning the fight or self preservation doesn't mean anything to them, only satisfying their unnatural, unending hunger.

As I said in another post, for "story" purposes that is fine and it makes sense, but it still more an issue with some justification why they are only +3 and not +5 on the bite? Are they non-proficient, is the attack slow, are the teeth so broken or twisted or something that they aren't effective and hence a penalty?

OR was it a mistake like warhorse and riding horse? Unless someone gets the errata (or even knows about it) or checks online, there is no way of knowing because some monsters follow the rules when being designed and some don't apparently (or if they are following the rules, we don't know which ones are being applied).

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless they're druids, or necromancers, or summoners, or have a familiar.

Also, given how many players also DM sometimes, and how easily accessible monster stat blocks are generally, it’s pretty much best to assume your players know the published monster stat blocks anyway. If you want to keep monster stats secret, you pretty much need to design your own, or at least customize the published ones.

 

[Todd Roybark]

IMO, no humanoid should be proficient in bite attacks.

Thematically Dave, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you.
Very little says horror to me more than a ghoul attacking from a darkness shrouded alcove, by grappling a character with their bite, and eating them alive and unparalyzed, and using the claws to keep the rest of the party away, and hopefully capture further courses with their claws.

Ghouls are not just humanoids, but undead humanoids.

 

[Fenris-77]

I make fairly random changes to monster stat blocks on a regular basis when I'm playing with veteran players. Not so much as to obviate their knowledge, but just enough that they know they can't rely on it in every instance. An adventurer might have extensive knowledge of many monsters, but a lot of it would be legends and tales and might contain as much myth as fact, so I try to mirror that as much as I can.

 

[dave2008]

Thematically Dave, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you.
Very little says horror to me more than a ghoul attacking from a darkness shrouded alcove, by grappling a character with their bite, and eating them alive and unparalyzed, and using the claws to keep the rest of the party away, and hopefully capture further courses with their claws.

Ghouls are not just humanoids, but undead humanoids.

That is with surprise, which I would see as a special case that makes sense to have a bonus. IMO, you've reinforced my point. Though I do think mindless undead attacking that way makes some sense. However, I didn't say they couldn't attack, I just said they shouldn't be proficient. I feel I can gm your exact scenario without the ghoul having proficient in its bite attack