Dragons Are Too Small!

Comparing dragons to all the other creatures in the Monster Manual, I have come to the conclusion that, for their level of power, toughness, and durability, they are much smaller than other creatures -- which is another way of saying that, for their listed size, dragons are much too powerful. This may seem like a non-problem ("dragons should be more powerful than other creatures"), but it turns into a critical issue when powerful dragons are being described to players, and it turns out that they're surprisingly miniscule for their alleged level of potency.

The table attached to this article presents a statistical comparison of dragons versus non-dragons, in each size category, for both raw number of Hit Dice and Challenge Rating. In the case of Hit Dice, I simply compare the number of dice, even though dragons have a larger Hit Die type than any other creature type (sharing their d12 with Undead, per MM p. 13), and so would by their nature already possess more hit points than another creature with the same raw number of Hit Dice.

As can be clearly seen, dragons have an overabundance of Hit Dice compared to other creatures. For any particular size category, the dragon Hit Dice average is usually quite close to twice the average for all other creatures; in fact, in every case except one, the dragon Hit Dice minimum is larger than the non-dragon Hit Dice average.

The same basic pattern can be seen for Challenge Ratings, as well. Up to the level of "Large" creatures, dragons average +2 or +3 CR over non-dragons of the same size; larger than that, and the difference grows more exaggerated, as dragons take on a CR of about twice that of an average monster of the same size. Again, in every case except one, the dragon Challenge Rating minimum equals or exceeds the non-dragon CR average.

In addition, this pattern is clearly confirmed by the article "How to Create a Monster" by Skip Williams. In that article, statistical ranges are given for each of the 17 monster types in each size category, for things like physical abilities, Hit Dice, and attack damage. Basically, 16 of the monster types all use an identical progression of Hit Dice by size, with Dragons being the sole exception. Dragons alone have a Hit Dice progression which gives them quintuple or more Hit Dice (between x5 and x12) over the standard until reaching the final three size categories.

Therefore, it can be said that any dragon is, on average, about 2 size categories too small for its listed number of Hit Dice (as compared to other creatures with the same raw Hit Dice; or, equivalently, dragons have increased Hit Dice equal to non-dragon creatures of 2 size ranks higher). Likewise, they are usually 1 or 2 size categories too small for their average Challenge Rating (and vice-versa).

What could be theoretically done to solve this problem? The easiest solution might be to use a description and Face/Reach value for any dragon which simply increases the listed size by +2 (or at least +1) size categories. Whether it would be justified, or worth the significant effort, to apply all the other modifiers for increasing size categories, I leave as an open question. I initially suggest that breath weapon sizes be scaled up accordingly (as per the chart on MM p. 62), but that ability scores not be altered (as per the table on MM p. 12), nor damage values (as shown on MM p. 61). Any specific skills (such as Hide) should be adjusted for the new size value, but perhaps the total Armor Class be left unchanged, assuming that increased Natural Armor offsets the larger Size AC penalty.