D&D 5E What is up with Adult and Ancient Dragons' Bites???

[Ondath]

IIRC A5e corrected this problem, but I don’t have my books with me.

Just checked the MM and this is indeed the case: Adult Reds in A5E hit 3d10+8 piercing + 1d8 fire with their Bite, and Ancients hit 4d10+10 P + 2d8 fire. So it seems the A5E designers agreed with @DND_Reborn that this was not just meaningless symmetry but an actual design problem.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, I get that, but take out the fire damage and the bite difference is only 4 points (which is entirely from Strength), when one is a large creature and the other gargantuan. That is ridiculous IMO.

Also, as for the fire damage in the bite, both a wyrmling and a young do +1d6 fire, even though a young dragon's breath weapon is more than DOUBLE what a wyrmling does (16d6 vs 7d6!). So, it would make sense IMO that the young should do +2d6 fire damage. This is an illogical design there that just goes against my grain.


Well, the T-Rex does 4d12, so having a larger (gargantuan) dragon do 4d10 seems appropriate to me.

Anyway, if you look at the artwork for the largest (ancient?) dragons, their heads are often bigger than the heroes fighting them. A T-Rex's head would be a bit smaller IMO, but rationalizing it has an incredibly powerful jaw, having it do more damage is fine I suppose. I certainly don't think a larger dragon's bite should be less than HALF the T-Rex (the default 2d10 vs. the 4d12).


I don't really see it as that hard a distinction.

You can't trust the artwork. The artwork for a greatwyrm red shows it towering over a city, yet it also does 2d10 bit damage!

A T. Rex is approx. 40' long, quite a bit larger than the 15' square of Huge and its head alone is Medium. A dragon "fills" a slightly larger 20' square, but is generally represented has having a longer neck, body, and tail when compared to a T. Rex. If you take the game structure into account, not the artwork, it is likely an ancient dragon's head is a bit smaller than a T-Rex head, IMO. So I am completely fine with 4d10 vs 4d12 for dragon vs rex bite damage.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Uni-the-Unicorn! and @dave2008

I know the artwork isn't a great guideline for size, but the issue lies also in (again) the design of 5E. ANY creature that is gargantuan fits in a 20x20 square (ridiculous), because they have no size category larger (like colossal--where did you go?).

You can't trust the artwork. The artwork for a greatwyrm red shows it towering over a city, yet it also does 2d10 bit damage!

Which is precisely the problem.

Why scale damage for every other creature except dragons? If it is a CR thing due to their system, I agree, change the fricken CR! Or if the damage issue is the problem lower the breath weapons a bit to compensate (since that damage is only guaranteed once in an encounter really).

In short, any sort of representative scaling would be fine with me, it doesn't have to be 1d10, 2d20, 3d10, 4d10. It could be 2d4, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10 or even 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, or whatever, depending on the damage value you think dragons' bites should have by age.

FWIW, I've already decided to house-rule the damages to scale (for bites and claws), and will probably adjust the breath weapons (I mean, seriously, 16d6 for young and 18d6 for adult???).

I just know oftentimes there are errata that has been released I might have missed, and wondered if this one of those things. I hope they "fix" this in 2024...

 

[Dioltach]

Perhaps dragons have very good manners, and only nibble at their food?

 

[Eubani]

We need to start making caps and t-shirts with "Make Dragons Terrifying Again" printed on them.

 

[Oofta]

The damage for dragons is based on their CR calculation, I agree with @dave2008. When/if I use one I'll probably adjust the other attacks or simply up the the bite damage and not worry about the CR calculation.

As far as T Rexes, don't underestimate the bite force of an adult. Their bites could crush bone and as far as we know the strongest bite force of any terrestrial animal ever [1].

 

[delericho]

It feels like you're indulging in one of the worst kinds of rules-design practices.

Symmetry for the sake of symmetry. Or in this case, regularity or repetition for the sake of regularity or repetition.

Rather than looking at the appropriate damage output for a monster of that CR, and then comparing that to what you're getting.

This.

That said...

So no one else is seriously entertaining the idea that it could be an actual error?

There's also a distinct possibility that this is also true.

 

[dave2008]

@Uni-the-Unicorn! and @dave2008

I know the artwork isn't a great guideline for size, but the issue lies also in (again) the design of 5E. ANY creature that is gargantuan fits in a 20x20 square (ridiculous), because they have no size category larger (like colossal--where did you go?).


Which is precisely the problem.

Why scale damage for every other creature except dragons? If it is a CR thing due to their system, I agree, change the fricken CR! Or if the damage issue is the problem lower the breath weapons a bit to compensate (since that damage is only guaranteed once in an encounter really).

In short, any sort of representative scaling would be fine with me, it doesn't have to be 1d10, 2d20, 3d10, 4d10. It could be 2d4, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10 or even 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, or whatever, depending on the damage value you think dragons' bites should have by age.

FWIW, I've already decided to house-rule the damages to scale (for bites and claws), and will probably adjust the breath weapons (I mean, seriously, 16d6 for young and 18d6 for adult???).

I just know oftentimes there are errata that has been released I might have missed, and wondered if this one of those things. I hope they "fix" this in 2024...

I hope they fix it, but I'm not confident. But honestly I like my dragons better than any I've seen by WotC or any 3PP, so I don't really need them. I've already made them!

 

[DND_Reborn]

This.

That said...



There's also a distinct possibility that this is also true.

But.... it isn't.

 

[delericho]

But.... it isn't.

Not so. In general, @Ruin Explorer 's point is quite right - it's a bad idea to look for excessive consistency in monster design. But in the specific case, it's possible that someone made a mistake.