D&D 5E Monster to-hit still seems borked.

[B.T.]

It seems the developers still aren't factoring weapon proficiency into monster attack rolls.

Bugbear: +2 attack with 15 Strength (morningstar), +2 attack with 14 Dexterity (javelin).

Giant centipede bite: +2 attack with 7 Strength / 14 Dexterity. Either the centipede should be proficient with its bite and have +4 (if bite is finesse) or +0 (if bite is not finesse).

Drow: +3 attack with drow longsword, 1d8 + 2 damage? The drow seems to be using its Dexterity modifier to deal damage (I guess drow longswords do that), but the attack bonus should be +4 (14 Dex, +2 profiency). Then there's the hand crossbow, which is +3 to hit (again, should be +4), but it does 1d8 + 4 damage instead of the appropriate 1d8+2.

Gelatinous cube: this one is definitely adding in a proficiency bonus +2 slam), since its Strength is 10 and its Dexterity is 3.

Gnoll Leader: +2 to hit with a greataxe even though the gnoll has +17 Strength. At the least, this should be +3, but more like +5 with the proficiency bonus.

That's just a few examples. Am I missing something here?

 

[n00bdragon]

More likely the numbers are entirely unrelated to their stats. If you look at it optimistically they have some sort of 4e-ish formula based on the monster's "level". Perhaps Hit Dice now. If you look at it pessimistically they are probably just pulling numbers out of their ass.

 

[the Jester]

It seems the developers still aren't factoring weapon proficiency into monster attack rolls.

Weapon proficiency doesn't give a bonus to hit in 5e AFAIK.

Hmmm... come to think of it, what happens when you attack with a weapon you aren't proficient in?

 

[Connorsrpg]

There is no proficiency bonus to attacks!

However, I would still like to see creatures that fight for survivale be better than a Wizard at melee combat. My preference would be to reign in the class attack bonuses though: +2/+1/+0 for Fighters/Rogues and Clerics/Wizards as a maximum at 1st level.

I am cool with some creatures being clumsy hitters, but doing extra damage on a hit (ogres for eg). I certainly do NOT want to see all numbers based upon level. I would prefer they went with what a creature is actually like.
Military humanoids such as hobgoblins and creatures that hunt for a living should however have more chance to hit.

In all there needs to be some move to get monsters in line with the inflated class bonuses at 1st level.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would like to see automatic disadavantage, if you use a weapon without proficiency.

The bonus to hit comes from class and stats. Most monsters are unclassed, so no bonus to hit. (How it should be)
As said in a different thread: wizards need a class bonus of +0 at level 1 to make them balanced against monsters, while fighters are spot on.

Notice, that some monsters have a higher or lesser bonus as you would expect. Seems genrally ok. We will know more after the next packet is released!

 

[Steely_Dan]

Not sure why they removed the +2 bonus that was in the 1st play-test packet, a minotaur now needs to roll a 16 to hit a mountain dwarf in plate with a shield.

I've added it back in (minotaur is +6 to hit, again).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not sure why they removed the +2 bonus that was in the 1st play-test packet, a minotaur now needs to roll a 16 to hit a mountain dwarf in plate with a shield.

I've added it back in (minotaur is +6 to hit, again).

I think it is wuite good, that with the current hitpoints and AC values, monsters don´t usually get the extra +2. If a minotaur hits a 1st level char, he is usually unconscious... the fighter is the exception who may be a little bit too tough...

 

[MoonSong]

I would like to see automatic disadavantage, if you use a weapon without proficiency.

The bonus to hit comes from class and stats. Most monsters are unclassed, so no bonus to hit. (How it should be)
As said in a different thread: wizards need a class bonus of +0 at level 1 to make them balanced against monsters, while fighters are spot on.

Notice, that some monsters have a higher or lesser bonus as you would expect. Seems genrally ok. We will know more after the next packet is released!

We talked about it on a previous thread that has since been lost to oblivion (thank you forum merger). The problem with having an automatic disadvantage when using a weapon you don't have the right proficiencies, is that suddenly nothing else matters, no matter what you do, you have disadvantage already, since it doesn't stack. Suddenly your rogue who decided to use a Heavy sword has nothing to stop him from also picking Plate as armor, and fight and explore recklessly while being only moderately unconvenienced, since he has little chance to fail on skills anyway.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

clicking on the left side flags makes everything ok again.

And if the rogue decides to fight recklessly and in plate armor... why not... it does not seem a good tactic anyway...

 

[B.T.]

More likely the numbers are entirely unrelated to their stats. If you look at it optimistically they have some sort of 4e-ish formula based on the monster's "level". Perhaps Hit Dice now. If you look at it pessimistically they are probably just pulling numbers out of their ass.

I certainly hope we aren't going back to that kind of system. That's going to sour me on 5e very quickly. I'm going to be running the updated Caves of Chaos playtest at some point, and I'm considering dropping character AC by 1-2 points across the board to compensate for the junk to-hit numbers.