D&D 5E Natural Weapons discrepancies?

[Sacrosanct]

It's simple. Monsters will use the attribute that makes them the most effective at inflicting harm. It's how evolution works. So really, all natural attacks are finesse. I don't think that has to explicitly be called out in a rule anywhere.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's simple. Monsters will use the attribute that makes them the most effective at inflicting harm. It's how evolution works. So really, all natural attacks are finesse. I don't think that has to explicitly be called out in a rule anywhere.

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Honestly, and I apologize because I know this sounds a bit dismissive of your issue, but this is player confusion, right? Players shouldn't have to worry about any stat block of a monster, or concern themselves about how a monsters attack modifiers are done. That's the realm of the DM.

And even if players do insist on looking at stat blocks, of all the ambiguities with rpg rules, that seems a pretty minor one to get caught up in. Like most every other thing that is ambiguous, just make a ruling and carry on.

 

[Leatherhead]

Monsters and PCs don't use the same rules. This is the first thing you have to learn about monsters, and the one thing they don't explicitly tell you.

Heck, natural weapons don't even have proper rules, most likely because players didn't get them until more recently. They are arguably more convoluted than the Stealth Rules, if only because the Stealth Rules are actually written down.

Here is the list of what we know about them, thanks to twitter and especially the new Path of the Beast UA:

• They are used for Melee Weapon Attacks. (Which by default use STR)
• They count for Attacks that use a Weapon (unlike Unarmed Strikes). This is a separate mechanic than the one listed above, which causes endless amounts of confusion and I wish in 5.5 they will bite the bullet, and rename "Melee Weapon Attacks" something like "Melee Physical Attacks" instead.
• They don't count as Holding a Weapon. (Which is important for some spells and Two Weapon Fighting)
• They don't count as a Weapon Object (Because they are a body part.) This disqualifies them from Infusions or spells like Magic Weapon.
• They don't count as Simple or Martial weapons.
• There is no rule that gives you Proficiency in Natural Weapons.

Now remember, none of this is explicitly written down, it all had to be inferred from other rules.

And in the few printed cases where a PC gets a natural attack, they totally sidestep the issue of not having rules by either using a Creature Stat Block (which don't have to follow PC rules), or having Natural Weapons count as Unarmed Strikes (which have their own subset of rules).

 

[Bacon Bits]

Primary natural weapons are almost always treated as having finesse. Secondary natural weapons occasionally do not.

That's really as complicated as it gets.

 

[Hriston]

Each monster is its own piece of design. Just like a spell, it does what it says it does.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

My question is why?

Because the game designers engineered the monster stats using the rules but then did extensive playtesting, and tweaked the stats based on the results. Not every monster in the book follows the rules in the DMG exactly.

SImply put, dire wolves are supposed to be bigger and nastier than normal wolves, so their numbers are bigger.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Honestly, and I apologize because I know this sounds a bit dismissive of your issue, but this is player confusion, right? Players shouldn't have to worry about any stat block of a monster, or concern themselves about how a monsters attack modifiers are done. That's the realm of the DM.

And even if players do insist on looking at stat blocks, of all the ambiguities with rpg rules, that seems a pretty minor one to get caught up in. Like most every other thing that is ambiguous, just make a ruling and carry on.

Well, it came up for two instances.

1) our party was getting horses and noticed the mistakes in the stat blocks in the MM and I looked up the errata, and

2) we were fighting dire wolves and the ranger's beast companion wolf was fighting one.

Between the players and DM, these blocks were looked up and the DM (who is normally a player) noticed the differences between the wolf types--why one seemed to be using DEX and the other STR.

Basically, we realized the wolf's bite is a "finesse" weapon attack and the dire wolf is not (using STR), but nothing in the MM has any section really about natural weapon attacks, and how some use DEX and others STR.

The player who has a monk (in our other game) commented about how it must be like how he can use DEX or STR, and another commented about how normally unarmed strikes, the humanoid equivalent of natural weapons, has to use STR. Another who has a dragonborn sorcerer (other game) with the racial feat dragon hide (for the AC) asked why he can't use his DEX for his claw attacks, since it states it adds his STR mod (which is 0) and he never uses it or even considers it.

And so a lengthy discussion ensued about the problems with having inconsistency, lack of information, and so on.

 

[Todd Roybark]

But your real problem is that your just stirring the pot looking for a problem where there is none.

ccs, this is not to single you out, but the statement quoted is a prime example of behavior that we as a chat board ( myself very much included) probably should NOT engage in.

As a board we should presume good faith on the part of posters. Most people, imo, do not engage in public discourse to have naughty word and abuse thrown at them. Trolls excepted.

I personally think it is entirely relevant and appropriate to ask:
“ Is there a secret system undergirding monster design in 5e”

Especially given that Secret Systems of Reality are de rigueur for fantasy themes.

In regards to DM/Design Fiat, Fiat requires trust. I’ve had players express incredulity the first time they experienced a MM creatures Legendary Action.

“Because I said so” works only when trust is present.

 

[Esker]

Basically, we realized the wolf's bite is a "finesse" weapon attack and the dire wolf is not (using STR)

The dire wolf's stat block is perfectly consistent with their natural weapon attack having the finesse property. A rogue who has higher STR than DEX can still choose to use STR for their finesse weapon attacks; and they will, since they're better that way.

As to why wolves' natural weapons have something like the finesse property, who knows? But thinking of it along the lines of what a monk can do makes sense to me: monks are supposed to have a particularly instinctive control over how they attack with their body. Makes perfect sense that a wild animal would be the same way.

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?