Do monsters with multiple natural weapons (such as dragons) get penalties in the same way as people with manufactured weapons do? (i.e -5 for the second attack, -10 for the third and subsequent attacks.) If so, is there any reason for a dragon making a full attack not to bite three times instead of biting and clawing twice like in 1e? After all, their bite does the most damage.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They do take such penalties, yes.
You'll find that, often, one weapon does less damage but is Agile, making it good for secondary attacks.
For Dragons, their bite does most damage, but their claws are Agile, and to-hit bonus matters a lot for DPR, incentivizing Bite/Claw/Claw routines. Many also have 'Draconic Rage' which gives three attacks in any order for two actions, but does not include their Bite attack. So a Black Dragon, for example, can spend three actions to get four attacks, an action to bite, then two actions on Draconic Rage for a horn attack and two claw attacks.
Other weapons often have other advantages like greater Reach that make them useful in specific circumstances.
Yes, any creature that makes more than one attack in a turn will take the Multiple Attack Penalty (-10/-5 or -4/-8 for Agile), unless something specifically says they don't. That includes not only weapons but unarmed attacks, monster attacks, attack spells or anything else that has the Attack trait (like Grapple and Trip).
Unarmed attacks suffer from MAP the same as every other attack. The manufactured weapondistinction of making every attack at full bonus is not in any way a part of this systrm.
Some creatures will have a more damaging attack, and an agile attack with lower damage. They may have attacks with different reach, or bonus effects that make using the most damaging attack 3 times not their best course of action (or other abilities to use, rather than 3 strikes).
It should be pretty rare to see a monster than has an attack that is strictly better in all cases than another of their attacks. For the most part the 2e monster design is tighter and smarter then that.
Hence why I said "in all cases". :)
Usually when I saw a creature armed with natural attacks in 1e, it was simply to ensure regardless of whether it had a manufactored weapon or not, it could make an attack. That, and natural attacks could be paired with manufactored weapon attacks as an attack routine, assume they had the hands free to do so. Also, some of those attacks come with beneficial riders, like grab.
This time around it seems to be mostly to inform their attack routines and when to use each attack, which is not entirely intuitively spelled out. You can put a statblock in front of someone but you should also explain 'hey they have a flourish, an agile attack and a backswing attack. Flourish, agile attacks past first, backswing if you miss'. Just listing the attacks isn't going to grok for everyone, especially if they are using the monster unprepared.
This was the benefit of NPC statblocks in 1e that had an explanation of how to operate that NPC and how they fight. Not all of them were very strategically intelligent according to those but they at least explained how the monster might act and use their abilities, which helps when the person running the monster doesn't have a good grasp of what they might do themselves, or any alternative ideas.