How much damage should OSR monsters do?

Hey all,

I am making up a kind of OSR beastiary and am trying to figure out how much damage OSR monsters should do? Is there any kind of guide to monster damage by HD or something?

I have tried a few internet searches but not come up with anything.

Any guidance greatly appreciated!

OK, by was of an aside, I've come up with the following as a rough guide:


What do you think? Too little, too much? Or okay? Or are OSR monsters best done on gut feel/more of an art? My feeling is the above would be a ballpark guide at best. Especially if you have multiple attacks, you would need to break that damage down into smaller chunks.

Psikerlord# said:

I am making up a kind of OSR beastiary and am trying to figure out how much damage OSR monsters should do?...
Any guidance greatly appreciated!

Click to expand...

What are you trying to accomplish? For example are you wanting to develop an average monster to challenge a party of 8 characters of a particular level?

Frost giants normally hit for 4d6 as roughly 10HD monsters.
Fire giants hit for 5d6 as 11HD monsters.
Cloud giants hits for 6d6 as 12HD monsters.
Storm giants hit for 7d6 as 15HD monsters.

Granted, giants are particularly hard hitting, but on that scale your table is not nearly as aggressive as Gygax's.

The reason you should be thinking about what you are trying to accomplish is that in general, there wasn't any single unifying design to 1e monsters. The above has an obvious pattern, but its not anything you'll see replicated elsewhere. Consider for example that an 12HD hydra attacks for 12d10 damage, but a stone golem at roughly 13HD attacks for just 3d8.

Celebrim said:

What are you trying to accomplish? For example are you wanting to develop an average monster to challenge a party of 8 characters of a particular level?

Frost giants normally hit for 4d6 as roughly 10HD monsters.
Fire giants hit for 5d6 as 11HD monsters.
Cloud giants hits for 6d6 as 12HD monsters.
Storm giants hit for 7d6 as 15HD monsters.

Granted, giants are particularly hard hitting, but on that scale your table is not nearly as aggressive as Gygax's.

The reason you should be thinking about what you are trying to accomplish is that in general, there wasn't any single unifying design to 1e monsters. The above has an obvious pattern, but its not anything you'll see replicated elsewhere. Consider for example that an 12HD hydra attacks for 12d10 damage, but a stone golem at roughly 13HD attacks for just 3d8.

Click to expand...

Yes I hear what you're saying, I noticed those patterns myself. I guess I was looking for some kind of consistency in damage scaling as HD increased - but perhaps there wasnt any, and it was simply more "like monster to like monster" consistency, such as the giants.

My goal was to try and figure out a baseline for expected damage at certain HD, so that I could then tweak it to suit my house rules and setting. I think some consistent damage scales for HD categories helps avoid oddities such as "hey this stone giant hits harder than that dragon, what gives?".

I suppose I have a certain hierarchy for the monsters in my mind. And part of establishing that hierarchy is the damage they cause. In any case, I think I can probably muddle through with knowing the highest end damage, and the lowest, and then moving things around in the middle.

I do think the giants damage is weirdly high though. I think I will probably ignore them!

edit: actually, re giant damage, I think I see what's happening. the dragon does something like up to 30-40 damage with all it's attacks, which is about the same as 7d6 for the biggest giant with a single attack. So in terms of overall damage perhaps they are not so out of whack. Would probably be better to split giant damage in two however and give them two attacks.

Psikerlord# said:

Yes I hear what you're saying, I noticed those patterns myself. I guess I was looking for some kind of consistency in damage scaling as HD increased - but perhaps there wasnt any, and it was simply more "like monster to like monster" consistency, such as the giants.

Click to expand...

I think that there is a like monster to like monster consistency. I think there is also a scale of how threatening a monster is supposed to be. Remember, 1e did have something like CR in that monsters had a level from 1-10 that was supposed to correspond to the average depth of the dungeon the monster appeared on which in turn was supposed to correspond to the average level the PCs had obtained.

Now for OSR you might want to scale that out to a monster level of 1-15. Your calculation would then be something like <hit points>/<average expected PC damage per round> * <monster average expected damage based on some assumptions about THAC0>/<intended monster level> = <some constant>.

I do think the giants damage is weirdly high though. I think I will probably ignore them!

Click to expand...

What is going on here is that giants, dragons, hydras, and certain devils and demons are 'end game content'. They have relatively high damage per hit die because they are intended to be of a relatively high monster level (what we'd now call CR). And in particular, keep in mind that dragon effective hit die is calculated much like golem effective hit die - divide hit points by 4.5. For example, an ancient red dragon with 10 HD and 80 hit points is effectively a 17HD monster (and explicitly in the rules saves as such).

edit: actually, re giant damage, I think I see what's happening. the dragon does something like up to 30-40 damage with all it's attacks, which is about the same as 7d6 for the biggest giant with a single attack. So in terms of overall damage perhaps they are not so out of whack. Would probably be better to split giant damage in two however and give them two attacks.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't split up the attacks. Probably the reason giants have a single attack is ease of running them. Giants are expected to be encountered in groups. If you split up the attacks, you are doubling the number of rolls the DMs are supposed to make. Dragons on the other hand are expected to be encountered alone (most of the time). So giving them the usual claw/claw/bite routine isn't a lot of burden.

Damage isn't necessarily assigned by HD or even Dungeon lvl, but by common sense or practicality. Damage is assign by attack/weapon type. This is most apparent among the low levels humanoids. The concept of damage by weapon doesn't change among the higher lvl monsters, the weapons simply change. Generally higher lvl Monster have more weapons to attack with amd thus more attacks and more overall damage. The 12 HD hydra doesn't cause 12d10 damage, it get 12 attacks which each do d10. If a creature has claws they generally get 2 claw attacks, monsters with carnivorous snouts get a bite attack, Dragons and others have breath weapons. Claws generally do d4 or d6 damage each, bites deal one die higher than the claw, and other attacks are dealt with on a case by case basis, sometimes with affects besides just damage. For example when hit by the breath of a white dragon, a character who doesn't save not only suffers full damage but should also be encased in ice or otherwise immobilized. Damage isn't arbitrary, it corresponds directly to the attack being made, and the number and types of attacks available to a monster.

Wangalade said:

Damage isn't necessarily assigned by HD or even Dungeon lvl, but by common sense or practicality. Damage is assign by attack/weapon type. This is most apparent among the low levels humanoids. The concept of damage by weapon doesn't change among the higher lvl monsters, the weapons simply change. Generally higher lvl Monster have more weapons to attack with amd thus more attacks and more overall damage. The 12 HD hydra doesn't cause 12d10 damage, it get 12 attacks which each do d10. If a creature has claws they generally get 2 claw attacks, monsters with carnivorous snouts get a bite attack, Dragons and others have breath weapons. Claws generally do d4 or d6 damage each, bites deal one die higher than the claw, and other attacks are dealt with on a case by case basis, sometimes with affects besides just damage. For example when hit by the breath of a white dragon, a character who doesn't save not only suffers full damage but should also be encased in ice or otherwise immobilized. Damage isn't arbitrary, it corresponds directly to the attack being made, and the number and types of attacks available to a monster.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree there is some truth to this, esp for any humanoids using weapons, and that makes good sense. But I dont think it works well when you get ogres and giants with huge weapons, in those cases I like the idea of increasing damage dice from 2d6, to 2d8, and so on. Similarly for dragon claws, which might say 2d10, quite different to a wolf claw of 1d6 or 1d4+1 or whatever.

The OD&D scale for damage works surprisingly well. Men have roughly 1d6 hit points and most things score 1 die of damage.

With things like giants the damage depends on what they are fighting. A giant fighting a hero will attack once for 2 dice of damage. A giant fighting normal men, including adventurers of 1st level other than fighting men, may attack one of them for two dice of damage, or attack 1 such opponent per hit die of the giant and score 1 die of damage against each.

Using a d6 for all hit die and damage keeps things very smooth.

ExploderWizard said:

The OD&D scale for damage works surprisingly well. Men have roughly 1d6 hit points and most things score 1 die of damage.

With things like giants the damage depends on what they are fighting. A giant fighting a hero will attack once for 2 dice of damage. A giant fighting normal men, including adventurers of 1st level other than fighting men, may attack one of them for two dice of damage, or attack 1 such opponent per hit die of the giant and score 1 die of damage against each.

Using a d6 for all hit die and damage keeps things very smooth.

Click to expand...

hmm I didnt realise OD&D had such flat damage, I shall have to take a look at that too.

Psikerlord# said:

Yes I agree there is some truth to this, esp for any humanoids using weapons, and that makes good sense. But I dont think it works well when you get ogres and giants with huge weapons, in those cases I like the idea of increasing damage dice from 2d6, to 2d8, and so on. Similarly for dragon claws, which might say 2d10, quite different to a wolf claw of 1d6 or 1d4+1 or whatever.

Click to expand...

The damage is different because the weapon is different. The giants are using weapons both sized and designed for them. Damage of human weapons shows the same phenomenon. A two handed sword may look very similar to a one handed sword, but do different damage because it is a different weapon. Giant swords are not just large versions of human swords, they are different weapons. Dragon claws are different weapons than canine claws. There is a reason we have something called "natural weapons," even though the object used for attack is part of the monster's body, does not mean it is not a weapon. This is not to say that larger weapons, whether natural or artificial, deal the same damage as smaller weapons. Only that monsters deal damage according to what means of attack are available to them and not according to their HD.

I have also toyed with the notion of using only d6 damage from OD&D, but that requires a different foundation for combat than is normally used for D&D today.