Okay, you’re incorrect. It’s true that your stats are replaced. What’s also true is this:
”You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.”
So we have two questions to ask:
1) Are ASIs features from your class?
2) Is the new form physically capable of using them?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then you retain their benefit. If your argument doesn’t lie with a “no” answer to one of those questions then your argument is irrelevant and invalid. If you do think the answer to one of them is no, I really would like to hear it. I’m sure there are angles I haven’t considered.
Now, I am not incorrect. You seem to think that a bear that was previously a dwarf can still use the dwarf's own strength and constitution, despite the fact that the rules explicitly tell us that the dwarf's own strength and constitution has been replaced with those of the bear. This has already been explained, numerous times.
If you’re not going to read my posts, why are you bothering to reply to them?
... so how does the Artificer rate?? For whatever reason wasn't an option in the poll...
I've played Paladin, Bard, Cleric and Artificer so far. Out of those my Battle Smith feels like she's both the strongest and most versatile character.
Given that Paladin and Clerics atm a top contenders for the strongest class just behind Wizard I'd say Artificer is quite literally off the charts. :D
Very curious about this. I'd put the artificer in the middle of the pack but I've never played one. Was there anything special about it? What subclass did you play?
... so how does the Artificer rate?? For whatever reason wasn't an option in the poll...
I've played Paladin, Bard, Cleric and Artificer so far. Out of those my Battle Smith feels like she's both the strongest and most versatile character.
Given that Paladin and Clerics atm a top contenders for the strongest class just behind Wizard I'd say Artificer is quite literally off the charts. :D
Very curious about this. I'd put the artificer in the middle of the pack but I've never played one. Was there anything special about it? What subclass did you play?
battle smith is a subclass for the artificer
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
... so how does the Artificer rate?? For whatever reason wasn't an option in the poll...
I've played Paladin, Bard, Cleric and Artificer so far. Out of those my Battle Smith feels like she's both the strongest and most versatile character.
Given that Paladin and Clerics atm a top contenders for the strongest class just behind Wizard I'd say Artificer is quite literally off the charts. :D
Very curious about this. I'd put the artificer in the middle of the pack but I've never played one. Was there anything special about it? What subclass did you play?
I play a rock gnome battle smith. Since she is small and the Steel Defender is medium, I can ride it as a mount, which helps to guarantee that he will always be able to intercept attack rolls on me with his reaction.
By picking enhanced defense, enhanced weapon and repulsing shield I have atm a higher AC than our Paladin (we're playing CoS and are still in starting equipment at level 6). I also have higher to hit, thanks to the magic +1 bonus, and I get to make effectively three attacks per round (2 myself and one from my trusty Steel Defender).
If someone would manage to hit me I always have "Shield" prepared (one of the Battle Smith's class spells).
Basically in combat I am harder to hit than a Paladin, hit harder and more often against my enemies, have higher movement speed than a Paladin and still get self buffs and self heals... faster than a Paladin. And if I need ranged combat, I can use Magic Stone or with a bit more preparation a magical crossbow.
Which is why I said I feel she's the strongest character so far. :-)
Out of combat I make use of my tools to build and invent things, if we need anything. Or I swap out one of my invocations. Too much loot? My repulsing shield just became a Bag of Holding. The human fighter doesn't see in the dark? I build him a set of Goggles of the Night. Magical Tinkering also has uses... especially the "shed light in 5ft" is really helpful in Barovia.
In summary I did not encounter a situation where I couldn't do anything to help with her, which is why I also feel she's the most versatile of my characters so far.
Edit: nevertheless she will probably die in two weeks. Facing Baba Lysaga in her flying skull while out of spell slots will probably be a TPK for our level 6 group. :/
Okay, you’re incorrect. It’s true that your stats are replaced. What’s also true is this:
”You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.”
So we have two questions to ask:
1) Are ASIs features from your class?
2) Is the new form physically capable of using them?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then you retain their benefit. If your argument doesn’t lie with a “no” answer to one of those questions then your argument is irrelevant and invalid. If you do think the answer to one of them is no, I really would like to hear it. I’m sure there are angles I haven’t considered.
Now, I am not incorrect. You seem to think that a bear that was previously a dwarf can still use the dwarf's own strength and constitution, despite the fact that the rules explicitly tell us that the dwarf's own strength and constitution has been replaced with those of the bear. This has already been explained, numerous times.
If you’re not going to read my posts, why are you bothering to reply to them?
Why so rude? I did read your post and I explained why I wasn't incorrect.
Okay, you’re incorrect. It’s true that your stats are replaced. What’s also true is this:
”You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.”
So we have two questions to ask:
1) Are ASIs features from your class?
2) Is the new form physically capable of using them?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then you retain their benefit. If your argument doesn’t lie with a “no” answer to one of those questions then your argument is irrelevant and invalid. If you do think the answer to one of them is no, I really would like to hear it. I’m sure there are angles I haven’t considered.
Now, I am not incorrect. You seem to think that a bear that was previously a dwarf can still use the dwarf's own strength and constitution, despite the fact that the rules explicitly tell us that the dwarf's own strength and constitution has been replaced with those of the bear. This has already been explained, numerous times.
If you’re not going to read my posts, why are you bothering to reply to them?
Why so rude? I did read your post and I explained why I wasn't incorrect.
I'm sorry if I came off as cross. I was a bit annoyed because, rather than responding to what I wrote, you articulated an entirely irrelevant stance which suggested you hadn't actually read what I wrote. I'll try to explain more fully.
The general rule is that a wild shaped druid's stats are replaced by the beast form's stats. We're discussing an exception to that rule that applies to features from the druid's race, class, or other source that the beast form is physically capable of using. If you want to argue that this exception doesn't apply, you need to explain either why ASIs, which are granted by classes and appear in the class progression column labeled "features," are not class features or why the new form would be physically incapable of using them. You can't just point back at the general rule; we're talking about an exception.
And more specifically: nobody is claiming that a wildshaped dwarf uses their humanoid Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity. Of course they assume the Bear's physical statistics. The point is, those Bear statistics are then further modified by the character's class features, including any ASI that the character may have. Though, I was corrected, that even if that is true, ASI cannot increase the Bear's stats above 20.
Even more controversial (and probably better suited to another thread), the Dwarf's racial attribute bonuses are "racial features," meaning a Mountain Dwarf druid that's wildshaped into a Bear should also receive +2 Strength and +2 Constitution on top of the Bear's normal Strength and Constitution scores. That seems pretty clearly RAW, though I do understand that it quite possibly isn't RAI. But I think its fine... you turn into a very dwarfy stocky bear, while an eleven druid would turn into a very long-limbed graceful elfy bear! But reasonable minds differ on whether this violates the spirit of the rule.
And more specifically: nobody is claiming that a wildshaped dwarf uses their humanoid Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity. Of course they assume the Bear's physical statistics. The point is, those Bear statistics are then further modified by the character's class features, including any ASI that the character may have. Though, I was corrected, that even if that is true, ASI cannot increase the Bear's stats above 20.
Even more controversial (and probably better suited to another thread), the Dwarf's racial attribute bonuses are "racial features," meaning a Mountain Dwarf druid that's wildshaped into a Bear should also receive +2 Strength and +2 Constitution on top of the Bear's normal Strength and Constitution scores. That seems pretty clearly RAW, though I do understand that it quite possibly isn't RAI. But I think its fine... you turn into a very dwarfy stocky bear, while an eleven druid would turn into a very long-limbed graceful elfy bear! But reasonable minds differ on whether this violates the spirit of the rule.
I’ve thought of that as well, and what I’ve arrived at is that if the ability score increases are granted by virtue of being a dwarf (WLOG), then a bear (WLOG) actually isn’t physically capable of using them because a bear isn’t a dwarf. I’d be hard-pressed to identify any racial features that I think the exception would apply to, since racial features are (almost?) always predicated on actually being that race.
That's possibly a reasonable argument, though I should point out that JC doesn't agree with it. There's a few sage advice tweets out there that "physical capable" means something more like "has eyes" or "has limbs" or "has a mouth," not "is that same race." Were that the definition, I don't see how any racial features would ever be "physically capable" in the Beast form, meaning it would be a meaningless allowance in Wildshape.
Okay, you’re incorrect. It’s true that your stats are replaced. What’s also true is this:
”You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.”
So we have two questions to ask:
1) Are ASIs features from your class?
2) Is the new form physically capable of using them?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then you retain their benefit. If your argument doesn’t lie with a “no” answer to one of those questions then your argument is irrelevant and invalid. If you do think the answer to one of them is no, I really would like to hear it. I’m sure there are angles I haven’t considered.
Now, I am not incorrect. You seem to think that a bear that was previously a dwarf can still use the dwarf's own strength and constitution, despite the fact that the rules explicitly tell us that the dwarf's own strength and constitution has been replaced with those of the bear. This has already been explained, numerous times.
If you’re not going to read my posts, why are you bothering to reply to them?
Why so rude? I did read your post and I explained why I wasn't incorrect.
I'm sorry if I came off as cross. I was a bit annoyed because, rather than responding to what I wrote, you articulated an entirely irrelevant stance which suggested you hadn't actually read what I wrote. I'll try to explain more fully.
The general rule is that a wild shaped druid's stats are replaced by the beast form's stats. We're discussing an exception to that rule that applies to features from the druid's race, class, or other source that the beast form is physically capable of using. If you want to argue that this exception doesn't apply, you need to explain either why ASIs, which are granted by classes and appear in the class progression column labeled "features," are not class features or why the new form would be physically incapable of using them. You can't just point back at the general rule; we're talking about an exception.
Saga, it seems like this is a general rule versus a specific rule. In those cases the specific rule wins.
General rule: Wild shape allows class features.
Specific rule: A character's physical stats are replaced by the attributes of the creature.
You’ve got those 100% backward. The general rule is that all statistics are replaced. Then there are exceptions provided for mental ability scores, race/class/other features, etc. And as CC explained, neither of us has ever been talking about using the physical ability scores of the normal druid. That’s a strawman. We’re talking about ASIs, and we’ve been very clear about that.
My main objection to ASIs and ability bumps from feats applying in wild shape is that moon druids are pretty darn powerful already (also, it's undefined whether raising the stats of a beast actually does anything -- it never actually says what stats attacks and save DCs are based on, though you can usually make a guess); otherwise, it means there's actually an incentive for a moon druid to raise stats other than wisdom, which seems like an improvement in game play to me.
I personally don't allow the physical ASIs in wildshaped form, as that was definitely not the Rules As Intended, but I agree that in the current form, it is RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
My main objection to ASIs and ability bumps from feats applying in wild shape is that moon druids are pretty darn powerful already (also, it's undefined whether raising the stats of a beast actually does anything -- it never actually says what stats attacks and save DCs are based on, though you can usually make a guess); otherwise, it means there's actually an incentive for a moon druid to raise stats other than wisdom, which seems like an improvement in game play to me.
This is an annoyingproblem that I wasn't going to mention, because it also deserves its own thread.
We do know that generally, ability scores work the same for monsters as they do for players, because we're told to just read the PHB section by the MM. One might (rightly) assume that a Beast's AC is either 10+Dex or [Natural Armor Value]+Dex, but that isn't explicitly laid out, though it does tell us that it takes Dexterity "into account." If you give an Allosaurus +2 Dex, does its AC actually go up to 14, or are they wearing Natural Armor that just sets it to 13 with no Dex bonus? Who knows!!! Hit points we're told explicitly are based off of Hit Die average roll + Con modifierxHD, so we can at least be confident about what happens when you give an Allosaurus +2 Con (it gains 6 HP). Saving Throws are the sum of their attribute bonus plus their proficiency bonus (which is based on CR), if they have proficiency in a save (which you can tell if the monster has a save actually listed in their statblock)... and you'll be bringing your character's humanoid save proficiencies with you anyway as well.. Skills are straightforward: attribute bonus, + proficiency if they appear in the statblock (though the interaction between Druid skills the beast doesn't have, Beast skills the druid doesn't have, and skills that both the beast and the druid have is BIZARRE and more complex than can be broken down here!).
But attacks and abilities... oh my are they ambiguous. We find no mention of monsters generally adding Strength to their Melee to hit/damage and Dexterity to Ranged... and in fact, quite a few monsters seem to be using unlabeled Finesse Weapons (like, see the Giant Spider, who attacks +5 with a +2 Strength modifier, +3 Dex modifier, and +2 Proficiency Bonus based on its CR), making it dangerous to assume. What stat are a Giant Spider's DC 12 Web based off of, Strength (8+2 Prof+ 2 ___)? Or is it just a static DC that can't be modified by further stat boosts? Now, the PHB section on Ability Scores does tell us that Strength is added to melee weapon attacks, and Dexterity added to ranged weapon attacks... but is that enough for us to hand waive the Finesse issue and assume that giving a Giant Spider +2 Dex will cause it to Bite for 1d8+4, or a Brown Bear +2 Strength will cause it to Bite for 1d8+5? Yes, I think yes it is very REASONABLE to do that... but it requires connecting some dots that aren't made explicit in the MM introduction like they should and could be. And there's just no hope for modifying DCs like the Spider's Web or Giant Crab's Claw, you just really have to throw up your hands and leave them as static DCs :/
My main objection to ASIs and ability bumps from feats applying in wild shape is that moon druids are pretty darn powerful already (also, it's undefined whether raising the stats of a beast actually does anything -- it never actually says what stats attacks and save DCs are based on, though you can usually make a guess); otherwise, it means there's actually an incentive for a moon druid to raise stats other than wisdom, which seems like an improvement in game play to me.
This is an annoyingproblem that I wasn't going to mention, because it also deserves its own thread.
We do know that generally, ability scores work the same for monsters as they do for players, because we're told to just read the PHB section by the MM. One might (rightly) assume that a Beast's AC is either 10+Dex or [Natural Armor Value]+Dex, but that isn't explicitly laid out, though it does tell us that it takes Dexterity "into account." If you give an Allosaurus +2 Dex, does its AC actually go up to 14, or are they wearing Natural Armor that just sets it to 13 with no Dex bonus? Who knows!!! Hit points we're told explicitly are based off of Hit Die average roll + Con modifierxHD, so we can at least be confident about what happens when you give an Allosaurus +2 Con (it gains 6 HP). Saving Throws are the sum of their attribute bonus plus their proficiency bonus (which is based on CR), if they have proficiency in a save (which you can tell if the monster has a save actually listed in their statblock)... and you'll be bringing your character's humanoid save proficiencies with you anyway as well.. Skills are straightforward: attribute bonus, + proficiency if they appear in the statblock (though the interaction between Druid skills the beast doesn't have, Beast skills the druid doesn't have, and skills that both the beast and the druid have is BIZARRE and more complex than can be broken down here!).
But attacks and abilities... oh my are they ambiguous. We find no mention of monsters generally adding Strength to their Melee to hit/damage and Dexterity to Ranged... and in fact, quite a few monsters seem to be using unlabeled Finesse Weapons (like, see the Giant Spider, who attacks +5 with a +2 Strength modifier, +3 Dex modifier, and +2 Proficiency Bonus based on its CR), making it dangerous to assume. What stat are a Giant Spider's DC 12 Web based off of, Strength (8+2 Prof+ 2 ___)? Or is it just a static DC that can't be modified by further stat boosts? Now, the PHB section on Ability Scores does tell us that Strength is added to melee weapon attacks, and Dexterity added to ranged weapon attacks... but is that enough for us to hand waive the Finesse issue and assume that giving a Giant Spider +2 Dex will cause it to Bite for 1d8+4, or a Brown Bear +2 Strength will cause it to Bite for 1d8+5? Yes, I think yes it is very REASONABLE to do that... but it requires connecting some dots that aren't made explicit in the MM introduction like they should and could be. And there's just no hope for modifying DCs like the Spider's Web or Giant Crab's Claw, you just really have to throw up your hands and leave them as static DCs :/
Grapple and Knockdown DC seems to be a passive Athletics score that includes a proficiency bonus for serpentine monsters (but not other monsters). Hence things like a Tarrasque having DC 20 to escape Grapple.
An interesting observation in the poll is that in the strength poll the Bard finished in 4th position ahead of fighter, druid and rogue -BUT- in the weakest poll the Bard finished 5th edging out the druid, but the fighter and rogue placed very low in the weakest poll. So overall the Bard appears to be the most controversial class for assigning a strength/weakness expectation. I'm interested in why this disparity exists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Strongest, I chose Cleric, Paladin, & Warlock. Cleric and Paladin seem obvious. Warlocks are badass, though you have to coordinate your Spells, Pacts, and Invocations. My warlock(Great Old One-Tome-2 FEATS[Magic Initiate & Moderate Armor]) was pretty much a Neutral Dr. Doom minus the INT.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you’re not going to read my posts, why are you bothering to reply to them?
... so how does the Artificer rate?? For whatever reason wasn't an option in the poll...
depends on how much your DM spoils your party with magic items
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I've played Paladin, Bard, Cleric and Artificer so far. Out of those my Battle Smith feels like she's both the strongest and most versatile character.
Given that Paladin and Clerics atm a top contenders for the strongest class just behind Wizard I'd say Artificer is quite literally off the charts. :D
Very curious about this. I'd put the artificer in the middle of the pack but I've never played one. Was there anything special about it? What subclass did you play?
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
battle smith is a subclass for the artificer
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I play a rock gnome battle smith. Since she is small and the Steel Defender is medium, I can ride it as a mount, which helps to guarantee that he will always be able to intercept attack rolls on me with his reaction.
By picking enhanced defense, enhanced weapon and repulsing shield I have atm a higher AC than our Paladin (we're playing CoS and are still in starting equipment at level 6). I also have higher to hit, thanks to the magic +1 bonus, and I get to make effectively three attacks per round (2 myself and one from my trusty Steel Defender).
If someone would manage to hit me I always have "Shield" prepared (one of the Battle Smith's class spells).
Basically in combat I am harder to hit than a Paladin, hit harder and more often against my enemies, have higher movement speed than a Paladin and still get self buffs and self heals... faster than a Paladin. And if I need ranged combat, I can use Magic Stone or with a bit more preparation a magical crossbow.
Which is why I said I feel she's the strongest character so far. :-)
Out of combat I make use of my tools to build and invent things, if we need anything. Or I swap out one of my invocations. Too much loot? My repulsing shield just became a Bag of Holding. The human fighter doesn't see in the dark? I build him a set of Goggles of the Night. Magical Tinkering also has uses... especially the "shed light in 5ft" is really helpful in Barovia.
In summary I did not encounter a situation where I couldn't do anything to help with her, which is why I also feel she's the most versatile of my characters so far.
Edit: nevertheless she will probably die in two weeks. Facing Baba Lysaga in her flying skull while out of spell slots will probably be a TPK for our level 6 group. :/
Why so rude? I did read your post and I explained why I wasn't incorrect.
I'm sorry if I came off as cross. I was a bit annoyed because, rather than responding to what I wrote, you articulated an entirely irrelevant stance which suggested you hadn't actually read what I wrote. I'll try to explain more fully.
The general rule is that a wild shaped druid's stats are replaced by the beast form's stats. We're discussing an exception to that rule that applies to features from the druid's race, class, or other source that the beast form is physically capable of using. If you want to argue that this exception doesn't apply, you need to explain either why ASIs, which are granted by classes and appear in the class progression column labeled "features," are not class features or why the new form would be physically incapable of using them. You can't just point back at the general rule; we're talking about an exception.
And more specifically: nobody is claiming that a wildshaped dwarf uses their humanoid Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity. Of course they assume the Bear's physical statistics. The point is, those Bear statistics are then further modified by the character's class features, including any ASI that the character may have. Though, I was corrected, that even if that is true, ASI cannot increase the Bear's stats above 20.
Even more controversial (and probably better suited to another thread), the Dwarf's racial attribute bonuses are "racial features," meaning a Mountain Dwarf druid that's wildshaped into a Bear should also receive +2 Strength and +2 Constitution on top of the Bear's normal Strength and Constitution scores. That seems pretty clearly RAW, though I do understand that it quite possibly isn't RAI. But I think its fine... you turn into a very dwarfy stocky bear, while an eleven druid would turn into a very long-limbed graceful elfy bear! But reasonable minds differ on whether this violates the spirit of the rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I’ve thought of that as well, and what I’ve arrived at is that if the ability score increases are granted by virtue of being a dwarf (WLOG), then a bear (WLOG) actually isn’t physically capable of using them because a bear isn’t a dwarf. I’d be hard-pressed to identify any racial features that I think the exception would apply to, since racial features are (almost?) always predicated on actually being that race.
That's possibly a reasonable argument, though I should point out that JC doesn't agree with it. There's a few sage advice tweets out there that "physical capable" means something more like "has eyes" or "has limbs" or "has a mouth," not "is that same race." Were that the definition, I don't see how any racial features would ever be "physically capable" in the Beast form, meaning it would be a meaningless allowance in Wildshape.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Saga, it seems like this is a general rule versus a specific rule. In those cases the specific rule wins.
General rule: Wild shape allows class features.
Specific rule: A character's physical stats are replaced by the attributes of the creature.
Maybe that is helpful?
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
You’ve got those 100% backward. The general rule is that all statistics are replaced. Then there are exceptions provided for mental ability scores, race/class/other features, etc. And as CC explained, neither of us has ever been talking about using the physical ability scores of the normal druid. That’s a strawman. We’re talking about ASIs, and we’ve been very clear about that.
My main objection to ASIs and ability bumps from feats applying in wild shape is that moon druids are pretty darn powerful already (also, it's undefined whether raising the stats of a beast actually does anything -- it never actually says what stats attacks and save DCs are based on, though you can usually make a guess); otherwise, it means there's actually an incentive for a moon druid to raise stats other than wisdom, which seems like an improvement in game play to me.
I personally don't allow the physical ASIs in wildshaped form, as that was definitely not the Rules As Intended, but I agree that in the current form, it is RAW.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This is an annoying problem that I wasn't going to mention, because it also deserves its own thread.
We do know that generally, ability scores work the same for monsters as they do for players, because we're told to just read the PHB section by the MM. One might (rightly) assume that a Beast's AC is either 10+Dex or [Natural Armor Value]+Dex, but that isn't explicitly laid out, though it does tell us that it takes Dexterity "into account." If you give an Allosaurus +2 Dex, does its AC actually go up to 14, or are they wearing Natural Armor that just sets it to 13 with no Dex bonus? Who knows!!! Hit points we're told explicitly are based off of Hit Die average roll + Con modifierxHD, so we can at least be confident about what happens when you give an Allosaurus +2 Con (it gains 6 HP). Saving Throws are the sum of their attribute bonus plus their proficiency bonus (which is based on CR), if they have proficiency in a save (which you can tell if the monster has a save actually listed in their statblock)... and you'll be bringing your character's humanoid save proficiencies with you anyway as well.. Skills are straightforward: attribute bonus, + proficiency if they appear in the statblock (though the interaction between Druid skills the beast doesn't have, Beast skills the druid doesn't have, and skills that both the beast and the druid have is BIZARRE and more complex than can be broken down here!).
But attacks and abilities... oh my are they ambiguous. We find no mention of monsters generally adding Strength to their Melee to hit/damage and Dexterity to Ranged... and in fact, quite a few monsters seem to be using unlabeled Finesse Weapons (like, see the Giant Spider, who attacks +5 with a +2 Strength modifier, +3 Dex modifier, and +2 Proficiency Bonus based on its CR), making it dangerous to assume. What stat are a Giant Spider's DC 12 Web based off of, Strength (8+2 Prof+ 2 ___)? Or is it just a static DC that can't be modified by further stat boosts? Now, the PHB section on Ability Scores does tell us that Strength is added to melee weapon attacks, and Dexterity added to ranged weapon attacks... but is that enough for us to hand waive the Finesse issue and assume that giving a Giant Spider +2 Dex will cause it to Bite for 1d8+4, or a Brown Bear +2 Strength will cause it to Bite for 1d8+5? Yes, I think yes it is very REASONABLE to do that... but it requires connecting some dots that aren't made explicit in the MM introduction like they should and could be. And there's just no hope for modifying DCs like the Spider's Web or Giant Crab's Claw, you just really have to throw up your hands and leave them as static DCs :/
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Grapple and Knockdown DC seems to be a passive Athletics score that includes a proficiency bonus for serpentine monsters (but not other monsters). Hence things like a Tarrasque having DC 20 to escape Grapple.
An interesting observation in the poll is that in the strength poll the Bard finished in 4th position ahead of fighter, druid and rogue -BUT- in the weakest poll the Bard finished 5th edging out the druid, but the fighter and rogue placed very low in the weakest poll. So overall the Bard appears to be the most controversial class for assigning a strength/weakness expectation. I'm interested in why this disparity exists.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Strongest, I chose Cleric, Paladin, & Warlock. Cleric and Paladin seem obvious. Warlocks are badass, though you have to coordinate your Spells, Pacts, and Invocations. My warlock(Great Old One-Tome-2 FEATS[Magic Initiate & Moderate Armor]) was pretty much a Neutral Dr. Doom minus the INT.