Gargantuan

[Camelot]

The space a gargantuan creature takes up is written as "4 x 4 or larger." How do you know what size to make a gargantuan monster?

Going off of reach and speed seems logical, but the Tarrasque has a reach of 3. Shouldn't it be the size of a city?

If I decided to improvise and actually make a gargantuan creature take up more space than 5 x 5, how big is too big? Obviously, a city sized Tarrasque wouldn't be moving anywhere any time soon. It would be like fighting a wall that fights back. Is that a bad thing? Or is 6 x 6 too much?

This is all just hypothetical rambling. My game (which hasn't met in eons) is at level 4, so they're nowhere near to fighting a gargantuan creature. Feel free to discuss, ramble, and wax philosophical.

 

[Saagael]

I think anything larger than 4x4 is a pain to use, and clunky in combat. Moving requires extra precision since you have to end in unoccupied spaces (specific monster mechanics can get around this though). Perhaps a problem for the player: it gets increasingly hard to flank larger creatures. Though on the flip side, there are more flank-able squares. Reach is nice, but unless the monster is getting multiple attacks per turn, it will generally stay attacking the defender next to it.

So I wouldn't use larger than 4x4, and a 4x4 monster should be few and far between, to really accentuate the enormity of the beast.

 

[Camelot]

Yeah, I get that, but 20 x 20 feet isn't exactly "gargantuan." In real life, that'd be like a fat elephant.

 

[twilsemail]

I think with something like the Tarrasque I'd almost rather see someone use 2 large minis to represent the legs and work out a way to work with flying PCs. I mean the thing is what 50' tall? 70? There are better ways to represent it than just one huge block of squares, IMHO.

Edit: maybe huge minis?

 

[Camelot]

That's actually a really interesting idea. I've heard of a kraken attack being done as multiple tentacles sticking up out of the water, and you could attack whichever one you wanted. Having collosal monsters have seperate parts might be a really cool mechanic, if at least for another game.

 

[Herschel]

Umm, no. Go in to an office space and look at the cubicles INCLUDING aisles. It's roughly three cubicles by three cubicles that it occupies (they're usually around 5 1/2' x 6' and there are aisles between the shorter sides). An elephant pushes 2x2.

 

[twilsemail]

That's actually a really interesting idea. I've heard of a kraken attack being done as multiple tentacles sticking up out of the water, and you could attack whichever one you wanted. Having collosal monsters have seperate parts might be a really cool mechanic, if at least for another game.

I think you're confusing the D&D Kraken with the Shining Force Kraken .

I kinda want to toss a Tarrasque at my upcoming Sunday game, too bad I've got a bit of a wait until they're up to a level that can take him... her... it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the real issue is that once you get past a certain size, like around 5x5 or so, the mechanical representation of a monster as a single creature occupying a space on the battle map starts to become rather abstract.

Consider, an immense Tarrasque that was 20 squares across would be so huge the PCs couldn't even reach the thing. Each of its FEET would be huge and its belly would be 100' in the air. It wouldn't even notice a PC, they would be like ants it would just step over/on. Within the framework of the standardized monster rules that kind of thing isn't really supported.

Way back in the early days of 4e here there were quite a few discussions about this kind of thing. Lots of ideas for composite monsters, monsters as skill challenges, etc were batted around. I think if you want a city sized Tarrasque then you're really going to need to recast it in some fashion. You could make each of its feet a huge counter and give them their own movement rules. Make the task of killing it involve climbing up onto the thing, negotiating its huge back, moving out onto its head and destroying the rune that gives it power or something. "Vermin" monsters could attack the party, etc.

MM3 has some notes about the planet sized monster "Alladar" which sort of indicates where the designers are on that kind of thing. Its not really going to ever be a formal rule structure, but depending on the nature of the 'monster' you could do various things (Alladar's 4x4 gargantuan size could represent an avatar, it could be just a piece of the monster, the monster could just condense down to a small(er) size to fight the PCs, etc).

 

[Camelot]

Sorry. I didn't research or anything. But it is still something that would just be strolling down the street killing 10 to 20 people instead of an eldritch beast that can destroy cities and millions of lives.

I just think that a battle against a 5 x 5 creature would make the PCs go, "Woah, it's big! Let's kill it!" But I would want them to be speechless and seriously consider just running away, simply by seeing the size.

Abdul, thanks for pointing that out. That would solve the mechanical problem, but it seems much more lackluster. I like the idea of having the PCs fight its feet, and by level 30, they can probably fly up to its belly too. It says that all flying creatures are kept within its range, so it shouldn't be a problem. Allabar is a good example too. I would love to see the players' faces when I told them they had to destroy a planet by themselves. Maybe they would have to find a way to land on Allabar, then face his aspect while stabbing at the very ground they walk on?

 

[Aulirophile]

Two things to note about 4e

1.) Everything is Cubes
2.) The space you take it up isn't your size, but the area you control in a fight.

So a Gargantuan creature is 20'x20'x20'. He isn't hundreds of feet tall.