STR Bonuses increase with Size category

[Gwarok]

Now I've proposed this rule with one of my players who is very much against it, saying that the folks who made 5E have already playtested things. Basically I am all on board with the new mechanics and like them, but don't like that big creatures don't really seem to hit that hard. This has always more or less bugged me, but in 3.5 it was just a matter of upping their STR to compensate. But in 5E, 30 seems the top of the tier since that is what the Tarrasque has. Yet it is only a +10 to damage, which is twice what a medium size human at max STR gets.


So I proposed that for each size category above medium, we add another multiple to the damage bonus from STR. So a Large Sized Ogre with a 19 STR doesn't do just +4 to damage like a human would, it would get +8. The Tarrasque at 30 but is Gargantuan would get 4x the bonus, so would deal a staggering +40 per hit. This makes fighting bigger things SUPER scary for mere mortals, but then again, anyone going up against the fantasy version of Godzilla with a sharp sword, even badass world champion swordmaster with a +3 epic artifact one, should really think twice about taking on Godzilla in a straight up fight.

Obviously this would alter the CR for bigger creatures, but seems to make more sense. Your thoughts?

 

[Gansk]

If you do this, you should lower the AC by 1 for each size category above medium - it makes for more work, but gives more of an impression of a lumbering behemoth that packs a whallop. The gargantuan beasts will do a lot of damage, but they will be hit more easily in return.

My thoughts were to add +2 to the Str modifier but -1 to the Dex modifier for each size category above medium, but I am also using old school ability modifier ranges and capping abilities at 20 for mortal creatures and 25 for supernatural creatures. That is even more work, but satisfies my world-building sensibilities.

 

[fuindordm]

I'd be more inclined to represent this with larger creatures using bigger damage dice, which might already be the case (I don't have my MM in front of me.)

 

[spinozajack]

Size-based modifiers are one thing from 3rd edition I would have liked to return.

AC bonuses or penalties are hard to come by. A character focused on stealth and trickery instead of damage, say, the iconic halfling burglar, or the gnome illusionist, would be well served from a +1 size bonus to AC even with a max strength of 18.

I just don't see why a halfling and a halforc both need to be able to get to 20 strength. I just don't. That seems like affirmative action to me, and totally unfair and unrealistic. +1 AC is nothing to sneeze at, and if a gargantuan enemy has an easy AC but bags of HP and back a big whallop when they hit you, then that's perfect. It means those -5 / +10 feats will be more effective against larger opponents than same-sized or smaller ones that are harder to hit.

5e is well designed but it's got numerous flaws. This is one. Large creatures get another damage die added for their weapons getting bigger by a step, but PCs don't when they get Enlarged. That's another goof the designers made. Probably one of the gamists-consistency-be-damned employees came up with those "innovations" to fix problems that didn't exist and throw away good ideas from prior editions for no reason other than "just because we can".

 

[Gillywonka]

I like your idea of adding extra damage for size, i would do it... and many other things mentioned throughout this thread. spinozajack said it perfectly wiht 5e affirmative actioning the races.

Other things i've also done, i dont listen to the 30 max strength, nor allow the various races to have all the same ability max or caps. I like 5e, but too oversimplified.