I am fairly certain that a vast majority of players do not want information in the Monster Manual that is entirely and absolutely irrelevant to the game. I can see people wanting height and weight (especially since weight is sometimes important), but the rest of the information you want is entirely irrelevant to the game.
Why doesn't the game include the typical food diet of Goblins or orcs? or discuss the mating rituals among displacer beasts? Because all of that information isn't relevant to the game and doesn't enhance the game in any way. Do you really think a wolf might be ten feet long, even though it only occupies 5ft? Common sense tells you that if you are a wolf and another creature is 10ft. above you, that you aren't going to be able to reach it. You don't need to know how long the wolf is.
I would honestly say that WotC look for products that are going to appeal to the most players. So if your options are 100 monsters without height/weight/length/eating habits/breakdown of all skills, or 80 monsters with height/weight/length/etc. most players are going to prefer the 100 monsters and would wine about all the irrelevant information for the 80 monsters and wonder why that was included when more monsters could have been.
And when running a D&D game, more monsters is far better to have than stats that are never going to be used because the rules exclude them from being used to begin with.
If something is only going to appeal to 30% of the player base, WotC is not going to do it. I mean case in point, look on the forums for how many people want Campaign Settings. I'd guess its at least 40%-50% of the people in those discussions. While you are the single person in here wanting irrelevant information because your DM happens to like playing a game that needs it.
We haven't gotten a Campaign Guide yet with a lot of players wanting one, really not hard to believe that something almost no one wants isn't on the to do list at WotC when something a lot of people want is itself not on the to do list.
well mating and eating habits does not affect the mechanics or the fight potentials of the game . EVEN THOUGH these information could be found in the monster lore in the MM . like how Blue dragons like to cock the meet of the animals using lightnings or how the hags kidnap children to make more hags .
the three dimensions , the weight , proficiency , skills and traits all those numbers are important . Ion stones , Ray of Enfeeblement , Contagion and many other debuff spells or buff spells . these states matter . if a creature have the same state for str and dex how can I know which state is ti using to attack . dc saving throws for other effects and all that bananas .
well mating and eating habits does not affect the mechanics or the fight potentials of the game . EVEN THOUGH these information could be found in the monster lore in the MM . like how Blue dragons like to cock the meet of the animals using lightnings or how the hags kidnap children to make more hags .
the three dimensions , the weight , proficiency , skills and traits all those numbers are important . Ion stones , Ray of Enfeeblement , Contagion and many other debuff spells or buff spells . these states matter . if a creature have the same state for str and dex how can I know which state is ti using to attack . dc saving throws for other effects and all that bananas .
Actual knowledge of how a monster acts is pertinent information for a DM to roleplay the creature correctly. Knowing the precise measurements of the creature doesn't ACTUALLY affect gameplay in ANY. WAY. AT. ALL.
Now, you ACTUALLY made a valid point in knowing whether the creature uses strength or dexterity (in rare cases which both the stat modifiers are equal, and it's not horribly obvious which one it is using). Though, my guess is that you'd be able to tell in most cases which one it is using, and in more than a few of those cases the weapons are "finesse" so they'd be able to choose to use either strength or dexterity. For example: a Chasme has a +2 bonus to Str and Dex. A quick look at the monster (it looks like a giant mosquito) would imply it would be Dex based. A quick look at the monster's stat block shows that it is proficient in Dexterity saving throws. Given all the information presented, you can easily assume that the attack is based on Dexterity.
On the same page, the Dretch has a +0 to Str and Dex. A quick look at the creature shows that it has a primarily muscular build. Now, you don't have the tell-tale signs like the Chasme example of a saving throw proficiency, but the muscular build would imply using Strength for its attacks.
A more difficult task would be the Yochlol, because it is proficient in Dexterity saving throws, so that would imply the attacks are Dexterity based, but the text describes them as a pillar of slime (and all oozes use Strength for their attacks), which implies Strength. I'd assume it's a Dexterity-based attack in this case)
Even in those two examples, though, you could easily assume that these creatures' attacks are "finesse" based, since bite, claw, and slam are used by both Strength-based and Dexterity-based characters alike.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
If by their example of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement are cast, then it KINDA matters, but honestly not even that much.
But would that apply to a creatures attacks or is it specifically weapon attacks? If non weapon attacks don't count (which I think the spell suggests) then you wouldn't really need to know for those attacks. The weapon ones would be more obvious.
If by their example of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement are cast, then it KINDA matters, but honestly not even that much.
But would that apply to a creatures attacks or is it specifically weapon attacks? If non weapon attacks don't count (which I think the spell suggests) then you wouldn't really need to know for those attacks. The weapon ones would be more obvious.
If a creature's stat block says an attack is a weapon attack, it's a weapon attack, even if it's using a natural weapon instead of a manufactured weapon. Barring special cases like grapples and shoves, the only alternative to a weapon attack is a spell attack; it's rare for creatures to have spell attacks that aren't spells (see Flameskulls for an example.)
For things like Ray of Enfeeblement, if the ability used is ambiguous I'd just stick to the norm (melee = strength, ranged = dexterity). Since the decision is more or less arbitrary I prefer to stick to the convention and avoid violating the player's expectations.
I'd also allow players to make a Perception check to determine the ability used after getting hit by or seeing an attack. I don't think it's fun or fair to force players to gamble their spell slots without giving them a chance to tell if the spell will work.
What about spells with actual finese weapons where it could be either or? Couldn't the creature potentially switch to dex for attacking to avoid the penalty?
This is one of those cases where having a non weapon attack be a weapon attack even though it is not using a weapon is just way more complex than a game that tried to simplify things should be.
I must admit the most recent bit of this discussion puzzles me.
Monsters follow the same rules players do for making attacks, no? (Monster Manual, page 10-11, mentions seeing the Player's Handbook).
So... they use Strength for melee weapon attacks, and Dexterity for Ranged weapon attacks.
Obviously, they use their greater modifier when wielding a finesse weapon (such as the Kenku or the Kobold).
And, as usual, if a trait (such as finesse) isn't explicitly mentioned, we shouldn't assume it exists. So most natural weapons, which do not mention the property, lack it.
With those in mind, it should be straightforward to see what's affected by Ray of Enfeeblement and what isn't, right? Or similar changes to a creature's statistics. Again, without needing to know the details on how the final bonus is derived - just subtract the penalty warranted.
If by their example of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement are cast, then it KINDA matters, but honestly not even that much.
But would that apply to a creatures attacks or is it specifically weapon attacks? If non weapon attacks don't count (which I think the spell suggests) then you wouldn't really need to know for those attacks. The weapon ones would be more obvious.
Creatures attacks are considered weapon attacks whether they are with manufactured or natural weapons. A claw for example is considered a natural weapon and counts as a weapon attack.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I must admit the most recent bit of this discussion puzzles me.
Monsters follow the same rules players do for making attacks, no? (Monster Manual, page 10-11, mentions seeing the Player's Handbook).
So... they use Strength for melee weapon attacks, and Dexterity for Ranged weapon attacks.
Obviously, they use their greater modifier when wielding a finesse weapon (such as the Kenku or the Kobold).
And, as usual, if a trait (such as finesse) isn't explicitly mentioned, we shouldn't assume it exists. So most natural weapons, which do not mention the property, lack it.
With those in mind, it should be straightforward to see what's affected by Ray of Enfeeblement and what isn't, right? Or similar changes to a creature's statistics. Again, without needing to know the details on how the final bonus is derived - just subtract the penalty warranted.
There are some who use strength for things like claw, bite, and slam and there are others who use dexterity for those attacks. So it's not as cut and dry as strength for melee, dexterity for ranged, because these attacks seem to be "finesse" weapons, valuing whatever stat is highest for the creature. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they ARE finesse weapons per say, Crawford actually specifically states that they are not Finesse weapons. So, that's a no to the idea of the monster choosing to use the other stat to avoid the effects of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement.
Personally, I'd rather they just removed the "that use Strength" portion from the spell and have it be all melee weapon attacks, or take it a step further and be ALL weapon attacks, since the idea of Ray of Enfeeblement is to make you weaker, and muscle weakness would affect your ability to strike quickly (for a finesse weapon) or aim effectively (for a ranged weapon).
As a DM, I'll probably have that at least apply to all natural weapon attacks (then again, I don't know that I've ever had a PC take Ray of Enfeeblement or the like, which is weird).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Its actually not weird at all. 1) Most players are 100% going to assume that only attacks made with weapons are weapon attacks because why would you think differently? Thus monsters don't attack with weapons and it would be pointless to take. 2) Its just impossible to tell whether a monster is using strength or dex. Its like the spell was made to specifically use actual weapon attacks that you could tell.
Also because a finesse weapon could be used in either hand, a monster could switch stats to avoid the effect. So the spell is only guaranteed against weapons that can not use finesse.
Its actually not weird at all. 1) Most players are 100% going to assume that only attacks made with weapons are weapon attacks because why would you think differently? Thus monsters don't attack with weapons and it would be pointless to take.
I disagree. Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, a quick look at the stat blocks on the back of the Player's Handbook will show monster attacks are almost always weapon attacks. There's no reason to think a claw/bite/slam isn't a weapon attack, unless you haven't read the rules or have never seen a stat block.
My experience has been that players generally ask if they're unsure what a spell does before learning/preparing it, and will double-check before casting it if they're still not 100% familiar with the relevant rules.
It's true someone with a finesse weapon can switch their attack ability, but most monsters don't use finesse weapons, and anyone using a finesse melee weapon probably relies on Dexterity, so I doubt that was a consideration when the wrote the spell. Heat Metal or Command is a much better way to force creatures to abandon their weapons.
There's no rules for telling which ability a monster relies on for attacks, but this is a perfectly reasonable use of Perception. A character can see that an ogre is strong but clumsy, or that a bear relies more on brute force rather than speed. The rules for using ability scores are deliberately open-ended. There's also no rules for identifying spells when you Counterspell, but it's common for DMs to provide some way, and even Crawford has house rules for this.
There is plenty of reason to assume that it is an unarmed strike because there is actually not a single weapon involved. The default assumption would be it is an unarmed strike. Maybe if you investigate further you might determine that it isn't an unarmed strike, but who is going to flip through sections of the phb that they don't need to discover that?
Its basically a spell that only works when the DM wills it to work, so hence why it isn't weird that players on average wouldn't take the spell. Anything left open-ended like that is probably going to result in players staying clear of it.
There is plenty of reason to assume that it is an unarmed strike because there is actually not a single weapon involved. The default assumption would be it is an unarmed strike. Maybe if you investigate further you might determine that it isn't an unarmed strike, but who is going to flip through sections of the phb that they don't need to discover that?
Its basically a spell that only works when the DM wills it to work, so hence why it isn't weird that players on average wouldn't take the spell. Anything left open-ended like that is probably going to result in players staying clear of it.
Again, the rules state that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, so you'd have to be wrong about that too, AND a quick glance at any stat block would show you they're weapon attacks anyways. If you're a Wizard or Warlock, odds are you've at least checked out the stat blocks for familiars. You don't have to be familiar with any rules; it's printed clearly next to every attack.
It takes too many mistakes and inaction to come to the conclusion Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't affect monsters. I can believe that many players may not know the rules well enough to answer that question off the top of their heads, but I don't believe most players would arrive at the wrong answer if they actually read the rules.
It's also not true that players avoid open-ended game elements. Illusion spells see plenty of use and they're about as open-ended as they get. The same could be said about hiding, but people still play Rogues, Rangers and Shadow Monks. Any necromancer Wizard will look through all the necromancy spells and put some thought into them. The 5e rules assume that the DM is working with the players, not against them.
Still no rule in the players handbook explicitly States monsters always do weapon attacks. It's not a logical conclusion. Sure if you have a familiar you might figure out, but that's only if you have a familiar.
Its arbitrary in the sense that you don't know before hand whether an attack is strength or dex based and that is entirely up to the dm since it isn't printed in the monster manual and players don't have access to the monster manual.
Illusion spells work all the time unless the creature beats the save dc. It isn't a spell that only works for weapon attacks that use a specific attribute that is determined by dm and can't be known ahead of time without a nice am.
Considering weapon attacks, the stat block of each monster has the type of attack in the action box.
For example, "Bite. Melee weapon attack", "Spear. Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack" etc.
The situation about Unarmed Strike not being a weapon but being a weapon attack is a little complex, but that's irrelevant in this case. If someone who is not familiar with the rules looks whether a bite or a claw is a "melee weapon attack" or not, the answer is right there at the action's description.
I am fairly certain that a vast majority of players do not want information in the Monster Manual that is entirely and absolutely irrelevant to the game. I can see people wanting height and weight (especially since weight is sometimes important), but the rest of the information you want is entirely irrelevant to the game.
Why doesn't the game include the typical food diet of Goblins or orcs? or discuss the mating rituals among displacer beasts? Because all of that information isn't relevant to the game and doesn't enhance the game in any way. Do you really think a wolf might be ten feet long, even though it only occupies 5ft? Common sense tells you that if you are a wolf and another creature is 10ft. above you, that you aren't going to be able to reach it. You don't need to know how long the wolf is.
I would honestly say that WotC look for products that are going to appeal to the most players. So if your options are 100 monsters without height/weight/length/eating habits/breakdown of all skills, or 80 monsters with height/weight/length/etc. most players are going to prefer the 100 monsters and would wine about all the irrelevant information for the 80 monsters and wonder why that was included when more monsters could have been.
And when running a D&D game, more monsters is far better to have than stats that are never going to be used because the rules exclude them from being used to begin with.
If something is only going to appeal to 30% of the player base, WotC is not going to do it. I mean case in point, look on the forums for how many people want Campaign Settings. I'd guess its at least 40%-50% of the people in those discussions. While you are the single person in here wanting irrelevant information because your DM happens to like playing a game that needs it.
We haven't gotten a Campaign Guide yet with a lot of players wanting one, really not hard to believe that something almost no one wants isn't on the to do list at WotC when something a lot of people want is itself not on the to do list.
well mating and eating habits does not affect the mechanics or the fight potentials of the game . EVEN THOUGH these information could be found in the monster lore in the MM . like how Blue dragons like to cock the meet of the animals using lightnings or how the hags kidnap children to make more hags .
the three dimensions , the weight , proficiency , skills and traits all those numbers are important . Ion stones , Ray of Enfeeblement , Contagion and many other debuff spells or buff spells . these states matter . if a creature have the same state for str and dex how can I know which state is ti using to attack . dc saving throws for other effects and all that bananas .
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).
You don't need to know which stat it uses to attack as far as I am aware. str. and dex always change to the monsters when you turn into one.
On the same page, the Dretch has a +0 to Str and Dex. A quick look at the creature shows that it has a primarily muscular build. Now, you don't have the tell-tale signs like the Chasme example of a saving throw proficiency, but the muscular build would imply using Strength for its attacks.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
But when would it matter if it is strength or dex, since both your strength and dex are equal to the monsters?
If by their example of spells like Ray of Enfeeblement are cast, then it KINDA matters, but honestly not even that much.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
What about spells with actual finese weapons where it could be either or? Couldn't the creature potentially switch to dex for attacking to avoid the penalty?
This is one of those cases where having a non weapon attack be a weapon attack even though it is not using a weapon is just way more complex than a game that tried to simplify things should be.
I must admit the most recent bit of this discussion puzzles me.
Monsters follow the same rules players do for making attacks, no? (Monster Manual, page 10-11, mentions seeing the Player's Handbook).
So... they use Strength for melee weapon attacks, and Dexterity for Ranged weapon attacks.
Obviously, they use their greater modifier when wielding a finesse weapon (such as the Kenku or the Kobold).
And, as usual, if a trait (such as finesse) isn't explicitly mentioned, we shouldn't assume it exists. So most natural weapons, which do not mention the property, lack it.
With those in mind, it should be straightforward to see what's affected by Ray of Enfeeblement and what isn't, right? Or similar changes to a creature's statistics. Again, without needing to know the details on how the final bonus is derived - just subtract the penalty warranted.
As a general rule monsters tend to follow the rules for PCs, however I believe there are exceptions where the monsters do not with some aspects.
A lot of the time you can assume expertise and that solves the issue, but sometimes it might not work.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/19/natural-weapon-finesse/
Personally, I'd rather they just removed the "that use Strength" portion from the spell and have it be all melee weapon attacks, or take it a step further and be ALL weapon attacks, since the idea of Ray of Enfeeblement is to make you weaker, and muscle weakness would affect your ability to strike quickly (for a finesse weapon) or aim effectively (for a ranged weapon).
As a DM, I'll probably have that at least apply to all natural weapon attacks (then again, I don't know that I've ever had a PC take Ray of Enfeeblement or the like, which is weird).
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Its actually not weird at all. 1) Most players are 100% going to assume that only attacks made with weapons are weapon attacks because why would you think differently? Thus monsters don't attack with weapons and it would be pointless to take. 2) Its just impossible to tell whether a monster is using strength or dex. Its like the spell was made to specifically use actual weapon attacks that you could tell.
Also because a finesse weapon could be used in either hand, a monster could switch stats to avoid the effect. So the spell is only guaranteed against weapons that can not use finesse.
There is plenty of reason to assume that it is an unarmed strike because there is actually not a single weapon involved. The default assumption would be it is an unarmed strike. Maybe if you investigate further you might determine that it isn't an unarmed strike, but who is going to flip through sections of the phb that they don't need to discover that?
Its basically a spell that only works when the DM wills it to work, so hence why it isn't weird that players on average wouldn't take the spell. Anything left open-ended like that is probably going to result in players staying clear of it.
Still no rule in the players handbook explicitly States monsters always do weapon attacks. It's not a logical conclusion. Sure if you have a familiar you might figure out, but that's only if you have a familiar.
Its arbitrary in the sense that you don't know before hand whether an attack is strength or dex based and that is entirely up to the dm since it isn't printed in the monster manual and players don't have access to the monster manual.
Illusion spells work all the time unless the creature beats the save dc. It isn't a spell that only works for weapon attacks that use a specific attribute that is determined by dm and can't be known ahead of time without a nice am.
Considering weapon attacks, the stat block of each monster has the type of attack in the action box.
For example, "Bite. Melee weapon attack", "Spear. Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack" etc.
The situation about Unarmed Strike not being a weapon but being a weapon attack is a little complex, but that's irrelevant in this case. If someone who is not familiar with the rules looks whether a bite or a claw is a "melee weapon attack" or not, the answer is right there at the action's description.
Each monster-s attack is either a weapon attack or a spell attack. It is written in the Basic Rules and in the Monster Manual :
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/monsters#Actions
The unarmed strike action (not a weapon) is a melee weapon attack. It might seem a weird wording for some but it makes the mechanics robust.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/03/melee-weapon-attack-with-an-unarmed-strike/