Basically, the average damage of a CR 6 young white dragon is (90+37+37)/3=54. This is using the math provided by DMG Chapter 9, which uses the young white dragon as an explicit example. However this damage and the dragon's +7 to hit and save DC 15 give the young white dragon an offensive CR of 8. The dragon has 133 hit points, AC 17, three save proficiencies (adding +2 effective AC), and can damage from range (+2 effective AC) so the dragon's defensive challenge rating is 8. This is too powerful.
It seems at a glance that the developers simply forgot to multiply the breath weapon damage by two, but I've heard the argument that letting dragons punch above their weight is intentional, as they are THE signature monsters of the game. So let's contrast the CR 8 young green dragon stat block. HP 136, AC 18, three save proficiencies (+2 effective AC), damages from range (+2 effective AC), defensive CR is 8. Damage is (84+37+37)/3=52, +7 to hit (save DC 14 but attack bonus matters more), offensive CR is 8. This is actually correct.
Both dragons are equals in offense and defense, but a goof in the math has resulted in the young white dragon being CR 6 when it should be CR 8.
Edit: I forgot the elemental damage on each dragon's bite. Offensive CR for both is 9, I guess. And there's an argument to be made that damage from range shouldn't count if it's one round only, so maybe defensive CR for both is 7.
They seem to have tried to make the dragon types +1 CR per category, which they messed up on a bit, but the young green dragon is actually the anomaly, because it has a lower offensive CR than the young black dragon.
Young White Dragon: Breath 45 (DC 15), multiattack 41 (+7), CR 6, dpr 57
Young Black Dragon: Breath 49 (DC 14), multiattack 41 (+7), CR 7, dpr 60
Young Green Dragon: Breath 42 (DC 14), multiattack 44 (+7), CR 8, dpr 57
Young Blue Dragon: Breath 55 (DC 16), multiattack 45 (+9), CR 9, dpr 67
Young Red Dragon: Breath 56 (DC 17), multiattack 46 (+10), CR 10, dpr 68
They seem to have tried to make the dragon types +1 CR per category, which they messed up on a bit, but the young green dragon is actually the anomaly, because it has a lower offensive CR than the young black dragon.
Young White Dragon: Breath 45 (DC 15), multiattack 41 (+7), CR 6, dpr 57
Young Black Dragon: Breath 49 (DC 14), multiattack 41 (+7), CR 7, dpr 60
Young Green Dragon: Breath 42 (DC 14), multiattack 44 (+7), CR 8, dpr 57
Young Blue Dragon: Breath 55 (DC 16), multiattack 45 (+9), CR 9, dpr 67
Young Red Dragon: Breath 56 (DC 17), multiattack 46 (+10), CR 10, dpr 68
But the green one is correct! Are you implying that they developers wanted DMs to accidentally TPK the players but forgot to forget to double the breath weapon damage for the young green dragon?
I think what is being said is that the CR system is inconsistent.
Pretty much this. Raw numbers are one thing, but those are inherently flawed. And tactics are an intangible that's difficult to account for. White dragons are supposed to be less intelligent and more primal than their chromatic kin. So even if the breath weapon counted as being able to deal damage at range (I think this is a dubious claim, given it's a once-per-fight cone), they would sooner get down on all fours to use it. Many creatures have an "optimal path" to reach their listed CR. In order for an orc to be accurate, they must use their Aggressive feature and throw a javelin with every action. A single greataxe action and their CR jumps to 1. Likewise, an intelligent goblin that reliably takes shelter and attacks with advantage from an unseen position is effectively CR 1.
I find the CR of a young white dragon to be a little different. Their offensive CR should be 9 and their defensive CR should be 7. Together, they still average out to 8, but that's wrong. So, why is it listed as 6? Well, the DMG actually uses them as an example for how to calculate CR. And while they include the breath weapon, they omit the cold damage from the bite attack. If we omit both the breath weapon and the cold damage, their mean damage drops to 37 and we use +7 to hit instead of DC 15 for the offensive CR. This, together, gives us an Offensive CR 5 and Defensive CR 7; which balance out to CR 6.
So maybe, just maybe, the "optimal path" for calculating its CR means not using its breath weapon. Counterintuitive, I know. I give mine the legendary actions of an adult, anyway, which bumps it up to Offensive CR 13 and CR 10 overall. Or I did when I ran Dragon of Icespire Peak. But I also had six players and some NPCs mercs they strong-armed into cooperating.
Having sent a young white dragon against a party of 4 level 5's, I can tell you the Young White Dragon is NOT too powerful. It survived three rounds and almost took out one player. Good fight, but far from too powerful.
Having sent a young white dragon against a party of 4 level 5's, I can tell you the Young White Dragon is NOT too powerful. It survived three rounds and almost took out one player. Good fight, but far from too powerful.
That's because the CR system is generally flawed; typically a CR 6 gets roflstomped in 2 turns by 4 level 5s.
By the DMG method Young White Dragon's have 9 offensive CR (57 damage/turn, +7 to hit) and 8 defensive CR (133hp, 21 effective ac (+4 to ac from flight and saving throw proficiencies)) giving it a CR of 8.5.
WotC have (supposedly) stated in the past that they purposely reduce the CR of chromatic dragons so DM's throw them at lower level party's to make dragon encounters more epic. There is evidence to suggest this if you compare it with the Young Copper Dragon which has lower hp, deals less damage, but gets a higher CR.
By the DMG method Young White Dragon's have 9 offensive CR (57 damage/turn, +7 to hit) and 8 defensive CR (133hp, 21 effective ac (+4 to ac from flight and saving throw proficiencies)) giving it a CR of 8.5.
WotC have (supposedly) stated in the past that they purposely reduce the CR of chromatic dragons so DM's throw them at lower level party's to make dragon encounters more epic. There is evidence to suggest this if you compare it with the Young Copper Dragon which has lower hp, deals less damage, but gets a higher CR.
Without an actual post to read from WotC, I'm inclined to think this is was a genuine math mistake rather than an attempt to "trick" DMs into making epic encounters with their signature monsters. Just look at aspect of Tiamat. Heck, look at Tiamat in the context of Rise of Tiamat. Her challenge rating is perfectly fine. If WotC was really falsifying the CR of dragons to create epic encounters, wouldn't they do the same for the literal goddess of evil dragons?
Having sent a young white dragon against a party of 4 level 5's, I can tell you the Young White Dragon is NOT too powerful. It survived three rounds and almost took out one player. Good fight, but far from too powerful.
That's because the CR system is generally flawed; typically a CR 6 gets roflstomped in 2 turns by 4 level 5s.
Yeah, my party of 4 level 5s curb-stomped two young white dragons in I think three rounds. If you have enough DPS, you can nova a young dragon fight without much ado.
By the DMG method Young White Dragon's have 9 offensive CR (57 damage/turn, +7 to hit) and 8 defensive CR (133hp, 21 effective ac (+4 to ac from flight and saving throw proficiencies)) giving it a CR of 8.5.
WotC have (supposedly) stated in the past that they purposely reduce the CR of chromatic dragons so DM's throw them at lower level party's to make dragon encounters more epic. There is evidence to suggest this if you compare it with the Young Copper Dragon which has lower hp, deals less damage, but gets a higher CR.
Without an actual post to read from WotC, I'm inclined to think this is was a genuine math mistake rather than an attempt to "trick" DMs into making epic encounters with their signature monsters. Just look at aspect of Tiamat. Heck, look at Tiamat in the context of Rise of Tiamat. Her challenge rating is perfectly fine. If WotC was really falsifying the CR of dragons to create epic encounters, wouldn't they do the same for the literal goddess of evil dragons?
I think you are correct and there are multiple things going on here:
CR is just not very precise or well-defined in general
dragons are typically skewed to be harder than their CR indicates
comparing white vs green makes it clear that CR assignment is not consistent even between dragons, which may indicate a mistake made at some point in production
the authors of some WotC content take CR more seriously or compute it in different ways than the authors of other WotC content (at least partially due to the first bullet)
Just comparing basically identical monsters at the same CR, you can see huge differences. Consider chimera, young brass dragon, young white dragon; they're basically interchangeable in capabilities but dramatically different in power.
By the DMG method Young White Dragon's have 9 offensive CR (57 damage/turn, +7 to hit) and 8 defensive CR (133hp, 21 effective ac (+4 to ac from flight and saving throw proficiencies)) giving it a CR of 8.5.
WotC have (supposedly) stated in the past that they purposely reduce the CR of chromatic dragons so DM's throw them at lower level party's to make dragon encounters more epic. There is evidence to suggest this if you compare it with the Young Copper Dragon which has lower hp, deals less damage, but gets a higher CR.
Without an actual post to read from WotC, I'm inclined to think this is was a genuine math mistake rather than an attempt to "trick" DMs into making epic encounters with their signature monsters. Just look at aspect of Tiamat. Heck, look at Tiamat in the context of Rise of Tiamat. Her challenge rating is perfectly fine. If WotC was really falsifying the CR of dragons to create epic encounters, wouldn't they do the same for the literal goddess of evil dragons?
I don't think I've ever seen any proof other than from forum posts or word of mouth, but dragons do seem to have their CR calculated differently to other creatures. I have a list below of every creature in the Monster Manual whose difference between stat block CR and DMG CR is at least 3 and the majority of them appear to be dragons.
Boosting monster CR to make the encounter more epic seems kind of redundant. Isn't making sure the encounter is epic the job of whoever is building the encounter rather than whoever is scoring the general threat posed by one monster?
Boosting monster CR to make the encounter more epic seems kind of redundant. Isn't making sure the encounter is epic the job of whoever is building the encounter rather than whoever is scoring the general threat posed by one monster?
You're halfway there.
Part of building an encounter is selecting the monsters to run. But it's important to remember that every monster stat block is only the typical example. Some will have more or fewer hit points than the mean. Some might have additional features and traits. There's a dwarf vampire in Dungeon of the Mad Mage with the Dwarven Resilience trait. And every dusk elf NPC from Curse of Strahd has the wood elf's Mask of the Wild trait. And there are countless named characters who use tailored stat blocks. In other words, customizing monsters is part of the game.
Solo creatures, especially, have a hard time challenging a full party because they're usually outmatched. If every character, even NPC, is limited to one action, bonus action, and reaction, then multiple PCs will collectively have more actions than a single NPC. That's why monsters get actions like Multiattack earlier than any player class can acquire Extra Attack. Plus, they get all kinds of other traits. They need it to challenge the PCs. Combat is intentionally asymmetrical.
So, when building an encounter, we have to decide what kind of experience we're aiming for. And then we tailor the encounter, accordingly, until we think it's good. That's why I gave my YWD for DoIP the legendary actions of an adult. Mind you, I didn't give it the resistances; just the actions. It was still enough to raise it to CR 10, which is a suitably tough challenge for six 6th-level characters. And with Innate Spellcasting (MM86), it spent its first turn on that instead of dealing damage. But against a smaller party, I might use the standard one. Other times, we don't want to challenge them. We want our players to wipe the metaphorical floor with enemies they've fought before, as a yardstick to measure their progression.
I know solo creatures have a hard time keeping up with multiple opponents, but dragons don't always fight solo. They are more than capable if teaming up with assassins and even other dragons. If the CR is tampered with in the interest of a solo fight, that can make a fight with multiple dragons much harder if the same CR is used to calculate such an encounter.
I know solo creatures have a hard time keeping up with multiple opponents, but dragons don't always fight solo. They are more than capable if teaming up with assassins and even other dragons. If the CR is tampered with in the interest of a solo fight, that can make a fight with multiple dragons much harder if the same CR is used to calculate such an encounter.
Any creature is capable of "teaming up" with another creature, so that isn't really an argument. In any case, you're just arguing back around to my own points on encounter design. The DM does what they need to do for the encounter they envision.
I know solo creatures have a hard time keeping up with multiple opponents, but dragons don't always fight solo. They are more than capable if teaming up with assassins and even other dragons. If the CR is tampered with in the interest of a solo fight, that can make a fight with multiple dragons much harder if the same CR is used to calculate such an encounter.
Any creature is capable of "teaming up" with another creature, so that isn't really an argument. In any case, you're just arguing back around to my own points on encounter design. The DM does what they need to do for the encounter they envision.
Yes, and the CR is supposed to help the DM do that. Not every DM has the time of day to actually playtest their encounters before the session, and sometimes they have to build the encounter during the session. The more the CR undersells the actual threat the monster poses, the harder that accurately building the encounter becomes.
I know solo creatures have a hard time keeping up with multiple opponents, but dragons don't always fight solo. They are more than capable if teaming up with assassins and even other dragons. If the CR is tampered with in the interest of a solo fight, that can make a fight with multiple dragons much harder if the same CR is used to calculate such an encounter.
Any creature is capable of "teaming up" with another creature, so that isn't really an argument. In any case, you're just arguing back around to my own points on encounter design. The DM does what they need to do for the encounter they envision.
Yes, and the CR is supposed to help the DM do that. Not every DM has the time of day to actually playtest their encounters before the session, and sometimes they have to build the encounter during the session. The more the CR undersells the actual threat the monster poses, the harder that accurately building the encounter becomes.
Every time an encounter is run is, essentially, a playtest. To paraphrase Helmut von Moltke, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." And if they're waiting until mid-session to build an encounter, then that's their own fault. It doesn't have to take a long time, and they don't have to do it that way. I'm going to assume you're alluding to random encounter tables. If so, I think you misunderstand how they work. "Random" is just a shorter way of saying "procedurally generated." It doesn't mean the DM shouldn't know what is or could be coming.
Once again, all of this is for the DM to figure out. And, after three posts, I'm still not sure what point it is you've been trying to make.
No, I'm not talking about random encounters or procrastinating DMs. Sometimes the players do something so unexpected that the encounters the DM wrote are actually impossible and must be replaced with unrelated ones on the fly, otherwise the session would end immediately. In such a scenario, the DM needs to be able to count on the CR to help build the encounter.
The point I'm making is that if the writers make the CR too low, purposely or otherwise, it can easily throw the DM into a situation where they battle they build is more difficult than they want it to be. At what point is it the writers' fault rather than the DM's?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basically, the average damage of a CR 6 young white dragon is (90+37+37)/3=54. This is using the math provided by DMG Chapter 9, which uses the young white dragon as an explicit example. However this damage and the dragon's +7 to hit and save DC 15 give the young white dragon an offensive CR of 8. The dragon has 133 hit points, AC 17, three save proficiencies (adding +2 effective AC), and can damage from range (+2 effective AC) so the dragon's defensive challenge rating is 8. This is too powerful.
It seems at a glance that the developers simply forgot to multiply the breath weapon damage by two, but I've heard the argument that letting dragons punch above their weight is intentional, as they are THE signature monsters of the game. So let's contrast the CR 8 young green dragon stat block. HP 136, AC 18, three save proficiencies (+2 effective AC), damages from range (+2 effective AC), defensive CR is 8. Damage is (84+37+37)/3=52, +7 to hit (save DC 14 but attack bonus matters more), offensive CR is 8. This is actually correct.
Both dragons are equals in offense and defense, but a goof in the math has resulted in the young white dragon being CR 6 when it should be CR 8.
Edit: I forgot the elemental damage on each dragon's bite. Offensive CR for both is 9, I guess. And there's an argument to be made that damage from range shouldn't count if it's one round only, so maybe defensive CR for both is 7.
They seem to have tried to make the dragon types +1 CR per category, which they messed up on a bit, but the young green dragon is actually the anomaly, because it has a lower offensive CR than the young black dragon.
But the green one is correct! Are you implying that they developers wanted DMs to accidentally TPK the players but forgot to forget to double the breath weapon damage for the young green dragon?
I think what is being said is that the CR system is inconsistent.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Pretty much this. Raw numbers are one thing, but those are inherently flawed. And tactics are an intangible that's difficult to account for. White dragons are supposed to be less intelligent and more primal than their chromatic kin. So even if the breath weapon counted as being able to deal damage at range (I think this is a dubious claim, given it's a once-per-fight cone), they would sooner get down on all fours to use it. Many creatures have an "optimal path" to reach their listed CR. In order for an orc to be accurate, they must use their Aggressive feature and throw a javelin with every action. A single greataxe action and their CR jumps to 1. Likewise, an intelligent goblin that reliably takes shelter and attacks with advantage from an unseen position is effectively CR 1.
I find the CR of a young white dragon to be a little different. Their offensive CR should be 9 and their defensive CR should be 7. Together, they still average out to 8, but that's wrong. So, why is it listed as 6? Well, the DMG actually uses them as an example for how to calculate CR. And while they include the breath weapon, they omit the cold damage from the bite attack. If we omit both the breath weapon and the cold damage, their mean damage drops to 37 and we use +7 to hit instead of DC 15 for the offensive CR. This, together, gives us an Offensive CR 5 and Defensive CR 7; which balance out to CR 6.
So maybe, just maybe, the "optimal path" for calculating its CR means not using its breath weapon. Counterintuitive, I know. I give mine the legendary actions of an adult, anyway, which bumps it up to Offensive CR 13 and CR 10 overall. Or I did when I ran Dragon of Icespire Peak. But I also had six players and some NPCs mercs they strong-armed into cooperating.
Having sent a young white dragon against a party of 4 level 5's, I can tell you the Young White Dragon is NOT too powerful. It survived three rounds and almost took out one player. Good fight, but far from too powerful.
That's because the CR system is generally flawed; typically a CR 6 gets roflstomped in 2 turns by 4 level 5s.
By the DMG method Young White Dragon's have 9 offensive CR (57 damage/turn, +7 to hit) and 8 defensive CR (133hp, 21 effective ac (+4 to ac from flight and saving throw proficiencies)) giving it a CR of 8.5.
WotC have (supposedly) stated in the past that they purposely reduce the CR of chromatic dragons so DM's throw them at lower level party's to make dragon encounters more epic. There is evidence to suggest this if you compare it with the Young Copper Dragon which has lower hp, deals less damage, but gets a higher CR.
Without an actual post to read from WotC, I'm inclined to think this is was a genuine math mistake rather than an attempt to "trick" DMs into making epic encounters with their signature monsters. Just look at aspect of Tiamat. Heck, look at Tiamat in the context of Rise of Tiamat. Her challenge rating is perfectly fine. If WotC was really falsifying the CR of dragons to create epic encounters, wouldn't they do the same for the literal goddess of evil dragons?
Yeah, my party of 4 level 5s curb-stomped two young white dragons in I think three rounds. If you have enough DPS, you can nova a young dragon fight without much ado.
I think you are correct and there are multiple things going on here:
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Just comparing basically identical monsters at the same CR, you can see huge differences. Consider chimera, young brass dragon, young white dragon; they're basically interchangeable in capabilities but dramatically different in power.
I don't think I've ever seen any proof other than from forum posts or word of mouth, but dragons do seem to have their CR calculated differently to other creatures. I have a list below of every creature in the Monster Manual whose difference between stat block CR and DMG CR is at least 3 and the majority of them appear to be dragons.
Name - CR in Stat Block - CR from DMG method (Offensive CR, Defensive CR)
Adult Blue Dracolich - 17 - 20 (21,19)
Adult Blue Dragon - 16 - 19.5 (21,18)
Adult Bronze Dragon - 15 - 19 (20,18)
Adult Gold Dragon - 17 - 21 (22,20)
Adult Red Dragon - 17 - 21 (22,20)
Adult Silver Dragon - 16 - 19.5 (20,19)
Adult White Dragon - 13 - 17 (18,16)
Ancient Bronze Dragon - 22 - 25 (25,25)
Couatl - 4 - 8.5 (3,14)
Night Hag (Coven Variant) - 7 - 10 (11,9)
Now that I look at it, the quote may have been about dragons in general instead of Chromatic Dragons
Boosting monster CR to make the encounter more epic seems kind of redundant. Isn't making sure the encounter is epic the job of whoever is building the encounter rather than whoever is scoring the general threat posed by one monster?
You're halfway there.
Part of building an encounter is selecting the monsters to run. But it's important to remember that every monster stat block is only the typical example. Some will have more or fewer hit points than the mean. Some might have additional features and traits. There's a dwarf vampire in Dungeon of the Mad Mage with the Dwarven Resilience trait. And every dusk elf NPC from Curse of Strahd has the wood elf's Mask of the Wild trait. And there are countless named characters who use tailored stat blocks. In other words, customizing monsters is part of the game.
Solo creatures, especially, have a hard time challenging a full party because they're usually outmatched. If every character, even NPC, is limited to one action, bonus action, and reaction, then multiple PCs will collectively have more actions than a single NPC. That's why monsters get actions like Multiattack earlier than any player class can acquire Extra Attack. Plus, they get all kinds of other traits. They need it to challenge the PCs. Combat is intentionally asymmetrical.
So, when building an encounter, we have to decide what kind of experience we're aiming for. And then we tailor the encounter, accordingly, until we think it's good. That's why I gave my YWD for DoIP the legendary actions of an adult. Mind you, I didn't give it the resistances; just the actions. It was still enough to raise it to CR 10, which is a suitably tough challenge for six 6th-level characters. And with Innate Spellcasting (MM86), it spent its first turn on that instead of dealing damage. But against a smaller party, I might use the standard one. Other times, we don't want to challenge them. We want our players to wipe the metaphorical floor with enemies they've fought before, as a yardstick to measure their progression.
I know solo creatures have a hard time keeping up with multiple opponents, but dragons don't always fight solo. They are more than capable if teaming up with assassins and even other dragons. If the CR is tampered with in the interest of a solo fight, that can make a fight with multiple dragons much harder if the same CR is used to calculate such an encounter.
Any creature is capable of "teaming up" with another creature, so that isn't really an argument. In any case, you're just arguing back around to my own points on encounter design. The DM does what they need to do for the encounter they envision.
Yes, and the CR is supposed to help the DM do that. Not every DM has the time of day to actually playtest their encounters before the session, and sometimes they have to build the encounter during the session. The more the CR undersells the actual threat the monster poses, the harder that accurately building the encounter becomes.
Every time an encounter is run is, essentially, a playtest. To paraphrase Helmut von Moltke, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." And if they're waiting until mid-session to build an encounter, then that's their own fault. It doesn't have to take a long time, and they don't have to do it that way. I'm going to assume you're alluding to random encounter tables. If so, I think you misunderstand how they work. "Random" is just a shorter way of saying "procedurally generated." It doesn't mean the DM shouldn't know what is or could be coming.
Once again, all of this is for the DM to figure out. And, after three posts, I'm still not sure what point it is you've been trying to make.
No, I'm not talking about random encounters or procrastinating DMs. Sometimes the players do something so unexpected that the encounters the DM wrote are actually impossible and must be replaced with unrelated ones on the fly, otherwise the session would end immediately. In such a scenario, the DM needs to be able to count on the CR to help build the encounter.
The point I'm making is that if the writers make the CR too low, purposely or otherwise, it can easily throw the DM into a situation where they battle they build is more difficult than they want it to be. At what point is it the writers' fault rather than the DM's?