D&D 5E Bigger monsters do more damage

[Stormonu]

Actually, a red dragon is CR 24. Still a valid point though!

Oh, whoops! Should have checked that first! Well, maybe this kind of change will make it a CR 30, and an incentive to bring back some of the missing age categories to fill in lower CR areas.

 

[Shardstone]

As a general trend for design for large and larger creatures, I'd rather their attacks hit wider areas and multiple targets than just ramping damage up as single attacks.
Not only does this make it a little bit more friendly to the iconic tropes that you're trying to play out with this type of encounter it also let you clean up the stat blocks a little bit because now you don't need 15 different types of multi attacks.

How would you write this?

 

[Blue]

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.

Only technically, and towards a different end than you are quoting it for.

What it says is that CR is the primary thing for determining damage. One way to get the proper damage for the CR is weapon damage scaling up. But a tiny creature and a huge creature with the same CR should, everything else beign the same, do the same approximate damage based on that CR. If the large creature does it from a massive bite and the tiny creature does it through poison is irrelevant to how the damage range is calculated.

Making larger creatures do more damage than they should for their CR just breaks the CR system even more. This is a rule that actively makes the game worse.

If you want to make a bigger creature a higher threat, increase it's CR. And that will flow through with more damage. But that should - MUST - have nothing to do with it's size. That someone making a same-CR creature will do that damage regardless of it's size.

 

[Quickleaf]

One fun way of implementing your idea is adding a large forced movement effect with additional 1d6 damage per 10 feet pushed (where you have Large push 10 feet, Huge push 20 feet, Gargantuan push 40 feet, or something like that).

For example: Make a DC 22 Strength save vs. adult red dragon's tail attack. If you succeed you are pushed 10 feet and take 1d6 bludgeoning damage. If you fail you are pushed 20 feet and take 2d6 bludgeoning damage; and you also are prone if you take any damage on the failed save.

You can adjust damage to taste, but the principle is to include more forced movement from bigger critters and attach additional damage to the forced movement instead of the initial impact. So the dragon can really play pinball with the wizard.

 

[dave2008]

OK, here is quick ancient red I made with this idea. Let me know what you think! PS - I had to up it to CR 26 to make it work.

 

[dave2008]

Only technically, and towards a different end than you are quoting it for.

What it says is that CR is the primary thing for determining damage. One way to get the proper damage for the CR is weapon damage scaling up. But a tiny creature and a huge creature with the same CR should, everything else beign the same, do the same approximate damage based on that CR. If the large creature does it from a massive bite and the tiny creature does it through poison is irrelevant to how the damage range is calculated.

Making larger creatures do more damage than they should for their CR just breaks the CR system even more. This is a rule that actively makes the game worse.

If you want to make a bigger creature a higher threat, increase it's CR. And that will flow through with more damage. But that should - MUST - have nothing to do with it's size. That someone making a same-CR creature will do that damage regardless of it's size.

The CR could increase yes. That is not issue. It is conceptually what it means to be bigger. Bigger stronger things do more damage when they hit. I know this doesn't 100% jive with the abstract nature of D&D combat and damage. Also, I am not talking about DPR, but simply attack damage. You could, in theory adjust the DPR to stay in the original CR range. See the revised red dragon I just posted in this thread.

 

[dave2008]

One fun way of implementing your idea is adding a large forced movement effect with additional 1d6 damage per 10 feet pushed (where you have Large push 10 feet, Huge push 20 feet, Gargantuan push 40 feet, or something like that).

For example: Make a DC 22 Strength save vs. adult red dragon's tail attack. If you succeed you are pushed 10 feet and take 1d6 bludgeoning damage. If you fail you are pushed 20 feet and take 2d6 bludgeoning damage; and you also are prone if you take any damage on the failed save.

You can adjust damage to taste, but the principle is to include more forced movement from bigger critters and attach additional damage to the forced movement instead of the initial impact. So the dragon can really play pinball with the wizard.

I like that idea! Doesn't really help the bite though

 

[Stoutstien]

How would you write this?

You pick a shape, range, and max target count based on the type of attacks. Bonus fun when you actually start designing it from a narrative perspective.

Tail sweep- +X to hit damage xxx (damage type depending on type of tail)
The dragon sweeps it's tail in an arch that is up 25 ft long and 10-15 ft away. Make an attack roll against up to X targets. On a hit the creature must make a DC X strength savings throw or be knocked to the end of the arch taking X additional bludgention damage for each creature who fails this save.

As a reaction, any creature that's targeted by this can drop prone prior to the attack. (Might add a note that being prone automatically gained you advantage on any attack more than 5 ft away not just ranged ones)

 

[Distracted DM]

How would you write this?

Pretty sure there are some Level Up A5E monsters that do something in this vein- I need to take a look. But I do think that a tail swipe affecting a 10ft cube or all creatures within the tail reach within some range of one-another... But I can't say that would reduce the number of attack types in a statblock without changing how those statblocks are presented.

You'd have to say "tail does XY damage," and then present a few different methods for how it could be applied (single target multi-attack, area, whatever). That'd be a bit of a change to a 5e monster statblock.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

One fun way of implementing your idea is adding a large forced movement effect with additional 1d6 damage per 10 feet pushed (where you have Large push 10 feet, Huge push 20 feet, Gargantuan push 40 feet, or something like that).

For example: Make a DC 22 Strength save vs. adult red dragon's tail attack. If you succeed you are pushed 10 feet and take 1d6 bludgeoning damage. If you fail you are pushed 20 feet and take 2d6 bludgeoning damage; and you also are prone if you take any damage on the failed save.

You can adjust damage to taste, but the principle is to include more forced movement from bigger critters and attach additional damage to the forced movement instead of the initial impact. So the dragon can really play pinball with the wizard.

I love using force movement on my larger monsters, it’s great for battlefield control. Though instead of damage based on how far a target moves, they take damage when that movement forces them to collide with something, more damage the father they travel before the collision.