Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7903197" data-attributes="member: 6987520">WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS ANNOYING, RIGHT? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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. But that isn't how they were made, is it? We understand proficiency and ability modifier combine for attack bonus. This is true in PCs and monsters.Now, as others have voiced some natural attacks might be "finesse" and others aren't, etc. which is a valid point. Some natural attacks might not be proficient (like the Ghast's bite), which doesn't make a lot of sense to me but 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? We won't know unless someone tweets about it, etc. Now, if they either said "everything is correct and is just the way we intended it to be for balance, etc." one would know any strange or unusual listing was intended as such; and if they said "everything is designed by these rules, so if anything doesn't follow them, it is in error" one would know a listing such as the ghast bite was probably an error.But, by hand-waving some things and having most things follow standard rules, there is inconsistency and confusion at times because of it. Like other things in 5E (and to be fair in prior editions as well), clearer information would have met such issues head-on.</blockquote>

Verification