dave2008
Legend
Actually, I disagree. In 5e, like 1e, 2e, & 4e, monsters are not expected to follow the same rules. 3e was the only edition when monsters were expected to follow the same rules.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Natural Weapons discrepancies?
- Thread starter DND_Reborn
- Start date
dave2008
Legend
For me it comes down to circumstances and what the stat blocks suggests. However, the vampire is a good example of when I would give the attack proficiency (possibly even expertise). The vampire bite attack requires the target to be: "one willing creature, or a creature that is Grappled by the vampire, Incapacitated, or Restrained." That is the perfect example of the conditions required to apply proficiency on a bite.OK, dave, edge case number two, Vampires. Convince me they shouldn't be proficient with their bite attack.
To me this highlights the fact that they understand how silly it is for a vampire to run around biting things as a primary attack. I mean, just try to do that yourself. How awkward and inefficient is that? That holds true for most, not all, humanoids IMO.
IF you need more convincing, let me know
I was being sarcastic mostly, you've done a fine job defending your ground on this one. Generally that's how'd I'd approach it, grab fist and bite second. There are some fiends and devils that I recall being mostly mouth who might prove an exception to this rule but at that point you;re probably pushing the bounds of 'humanoid'.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Well, I can't speak for 4E since I never played it, and my 3E exposure was less than 1 year a long time ago.
But, 1E monsters used a chart for attacks, just like PCs did, and stat blocks were entirely different. Then, it was a case of "we designed it" that way, plus they didn't have ability scores, so their damage was also just decided it should be what it was.
In 2E, monsters also used THAC0, and their stat blocks were pretty similar to 1E.
However, in 5E, it is a case that proficiency bonus and ability modifiers determine attacks, saves, etc., just like PCs. Again, that being said, hand-waving is fine but that isn't the case. I mean, seriously, how few monsters have attacks listed they are not proficient in??
Basically the designers wanted it both ways: you basically follow the rules, but also hand-wave whatever you want and don't worry about giving any explanation or justification.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Sure, and that's great, but how do you know when a bonus is off because of a choice or an error? That is the problem. 95% of the time you can probably just assume it was by design (however justified) but then there are the times it is because of errors. Its just annoying since you can be certain if something is design choice or mistake.
dave2008
Legend
The are superficially similar, but it is a mistake to think they are the same. Simple example: Monster / NPC proficiency is based on CR and PCs by level. They both give a +6 at CR/lvl 20. However, if you figure a 20th lvl PC's CR with the DMG you will get something in the 10-12 range which is a +4/+5 proficiency vs the +6 proficiency for a lvl 20 PC. Also, all PCs get proficiency in 3 saves, yet very few monsters do. They are not playing by the same rules.
dave2008
Legend
Safe bet, assume all of it is an error. Then just pick what works best for you!
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
But they still use rules, even if only similar in certain ways. They aren't just pulling numbers out of the air.
You are also making a couple mistakes:
Neither monsters nor PCs add proficiency to damage.
All PCs get proficiency in 2 saves, not three. (A simply typo I hope?)
Finally, when monsters do have saves, they are still calculated the same way--using the same rule.
Similar Threads
