D&D 5E Bigger monsters do more damage

[Distracted DM]

Here is my guide on that:

• Strafing. If a dragon moves in a straight line in the same round that it uses its breath weapon, it can add the movement to the length of its breath weapon. For cone shaped breath weapons, the added length is a line the width of the cone added to the end of the cone.

Man, I need this noted down on my dragons somewhere! I need something to make younger dragons really scary. My parties usually have at least a couple mechanics-conscious aka optimizer players and in A5e that can be REALLY scary without being munchkin-ey.

 

[dave2008]

I think increasing the dice is fine, but the modifier damage might be a bit too much. However, turning an attack into a small AoE might be cool, make a single attack roll, possibly hit both the barbarian and the fighter with a single attack.

The issue with increasing just damage dice is a crit is way more dangerous (for the same average damage)

 

[TiQuinn]

I just had an idea when posting the pick below in the dragons thread. Bigger monsters need to do more damage. The DMG or MM (I can't remember which) gives guidance that as weapons in crease in size. Just give them another die. So a Large sword does 2d8 instead of 1d8 damage. I generally apply the same idea to my monsters. So if a Medium monster's tail does 1d8 damage (+ mod) then a Gargantuan should do 4d8 (+ mod) damage, right?

However, what if we increased the mod damage and the dice. So for each step up in size you add another mod. damage. So you would have 8 (1d8+4) damage for a Medium tail attack (STR 18) or 58 (4d8 +40) for a Gargantuan one. That seems better than what we get in the MM!

Red Dragon Tail: 19 (2d8 + 10) vs.
Improved Red Dragon Tail: 58 (4d8 +40)

View attachment 363268

Here is an example I developed with these ideas later in the thread:
View attachment 363425

I’ve always felt that if a dragon is going to hit someone with a tail slam, it’s going to hit a lot more than one person and do a whole lot more damage, particularly if just decides to turn around and sweep its tail out in an arc. That should hit a few PCs and knock them on their asses.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Standard
Medium 1d8+10 (15hp)
Large 2d8+10 (19hp)
Huge 3d8+10 (24hp)
Gargantuan 4d10+10 (28hp)

Increase dice number only
Medium d8+10 (15hp)
Large 2d8+10 (19hp)
Huge 4d8+10 (28hp)
Gargantuan 8d8+10 (46hp)

Increase dice type only
Medium d8+10 (15hp)
Large 2d10+10 (21hp)
Huge 3d12+10 (30hp)
Gargantuan 8d6+10 (38hp)

Increase dice type and incremental increase on modifier
Medium d8+10 (15hp)
Large 2d10+15 (26hp)
Huge 3d12+20 (40hp)
Gargantuan 8d6+25 (53hp)

Per @dave2008 (increase modifier only)
Medium d8+10 (15hp)
Large 2d8+20 (29hp)
Huge 3d8+30 (44hp)
Gargantuan 4d8+40 (58hp)

Increase dice number and incremental increase on modifier
Medium d8+10 (15hp)
Large 2d8+15 (24hp)
Huge 4d8+20 (38hp)
Gargantuan 8d8+25 (61hp)

Going beyond, like increasing dice number & type might be getting into crazy figures
Things to consider

• Criticals with many dice
• Feats that reroll 1's and 2's
• Shoves/Pushes, Knocking Prone and other conditions due to monster size or as a replacement to increased damage

 

[Shardstone]

I like more complicated monsters personally, but that's because i believe the more complicated a monster is, the more likely I am to be able to use the same monster/character repeatedly in a game. I use Fleeing rules in my D&D, and things usually flee at the end of the third round or due to other factors. Thus, I get a loooot of mileage out of complicated monsters; every fight means different abilities get used, and some old ones, keeping it fresh and cinematic.

 

[Yaarel]

I just had an idea when posting the pick below in the dragons thread. Bigger monsters need to do more damage. The DMG or MM (I can't remember which) gives guidance that as weapons in crease in size. Just give them another die. So a Large sword does 2d8 instead of 1d8 damage. I generally apply the same idea to my monsters. So if a Medium monster's tail does 1d8 damage (+ mod) then a Gargantuan should do 4d8 (+ mod) damage, right?

I was thinking something similar for playable Large species.

Delete all the "weapon sizes". Instead grant a size-bonus to damage of any attack that relies on Strength.

Medium: −
Large: +1d6
Huge: +2d6
Gargantuan: +3d6

So, an Orc who happens to be Large, wields a Longsword that inflicts 1d8 + 4 Strength + 1d6 Large.


With regard to balance, the Large size in itself grants no benefits, but other mechanics can refer to it. To gain the benefit of the Size bonus to damage (from species or feat), the Large size is a prereq. Also, the Size bonus can only apply once per round if an Attack hits. The flavor is inertia and momentum − deadly if connecting but takes time to get an other full swing in. At higher tiers, other benefits can Improve this, with higher damage dice and more times per round. All within balance.


In 5e, playing Large or even larger characters balances surprisingly well within the game engine. Reach balances. The main reason for robustness is, there is only one Reaction. So 5e lacks a situation where an Op Attack with Reach can gain crazy amounts of damage among many targets.


Generally, the prereq for a character to be Large is a Score of 17 in both Strength and Constitution. But a DM might want to negotiate this.

 

[dave2008]

I’ve always felt that if a dragon is going to hit someone with a tail slam, it’s going to hit a lot more than one person and do a whole lot more damage, particularly if just decides to turn around and sweep its tail out in an arc. That should hit a few PCs and knock them on their asses.

That was discussed up thread (from a black dragon I made):

Tail Sweep (Costs 3 Actions). The dragon makes a tail attack on each creature within a 30-foot cone and it can then take the hide action if it is in a swamp or darkness. On a hit, the target is also knocked prone.

 

[dave2008]

I like more complicated monsters personally, but that's because i believe the more complicated a monster is, the more likely I am to be able to use the same monster/character repeatedly in a game. I use Fleeing rules in my D&D, and things usually flee at the end of the third round or due to other factors. Thus, I get a loooot of mileage out of complicated monsters; every fight means different abilities get used, and some old ones, keeping it fresh and cinematic.

That's cool, but seems to be a tangent to this discussion on damage, or am I missing something?

 

[Stoutstien]

I agree to an extent. To use the God of War analogy, having massive climb-able or explore-able monsters is cool, but you also need the numbers to go up so the other enemies are also threat.

Godzilla and Kratos might be in around the same ballpark in terms of power. The easy way to explain that is in their damage.

contrary to WotC 2014 Monster Manual, high level D&D is not just ancient dragons, Balors the Kraken and the Tarrasque. DM's need a range of simple but tough high C R mooks and mini-bosses to throw at players.

Fizban's was a big disappointment.

The mind flayer dragon is interesting but yeah the rest of it is pretty much just filler.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't do more damage I'm just pointing out there's a point where more damage no longer acts as an effective model to show that they are more dangerous because they're bigger. There's a break point where you get to the point where it's either a miss or a splat which is okay for certain tables but it's also inherently uninteresting because the counter play is very limited.

I think massive damage has its place but they're awesome it needs to be some kind of setup for it so if the players end up eating it it's because of the decision rather than just dice rolls.

 

[Shardstone]

That's cool, but seems to be a tangent to this discussion on damage, or am I missing something?

Responding to the general vibe in this thread that's talking about MCDM, which in turn leads to the core topic of this thread because mechanics like those discussed in the OP and posited by me further up thread lead to naturally more complicated monsters.