Why the hate for complexity?

What they really should have done is just given some examples of the size categories to give us some sort of idea of what they are thinking of. Now, of course the Monster Manual is filled with examples, but that requires studying it with that in mind. Having three examples of each size category of monsters with different dimensions (as far as possible, including at least one real world animal in each) would help I think.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Samloyal23

Adventurer
I suspect that there is a certain amount of hiding the man behind the curtain as well. There are reasons to not want players to think about how it works.

The streamlining of monsters to abstract combat space tends to hide the actual size of the monster. The most egregious case is something like a "large" sized snake in 3.5 or 5e D&D. The trouble is that a 12' long snake might actually only weigh 15 pounds. So is the snake large because of its ability to take up space, or medium size because of its reach, or tiny because of its weight?

By not describing the actual physical dimensions of the monster, you avoid the problem of players or GMs of having a prompt to ask these questions about your system. 5e is very much designed to encourage people to be satisfied with a simplified rule set. Thinking about it is discouraged compared to having fun. It's a valid aesthetic choice, and not getting people to think hard about it is a valid design choice, and I wouldn't be surprised if not including real physical measurements was an intentional decision.

That is what it looks like. I do not like this approach at all, it rubs me wrong. I want to see the gears turn so I know how things work.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top