Honey, I Shrunk the Monster Manual!

I find it interesting that people instantly complained, instead of going "Awesome! We'll get a mini sooner AND it's more like the oldskool version!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think it is more likely that they would reduce the size of creatures because of gameplay reasons, rather than for the sake of the miniatures line. The very fact that it was necessary to resort to terms like "gargantuan" shows that the existing size category system has problems. The complete inability of the size category system to function for vehicles and ships is another issue (albeit irrelevent for sizes of existing momsters).

As a whole, one can argue that for gameplay reasons monsters were just too large anyways. Shrinking a few of them doesn't seem to hurt anything if you ask me.
 



Zurai said:
You cannot possibly be serious.
Seconded

I actually prefer the D&D size category system. It runs a nice middle ground between say GURPS which is really too granular, and Exalted which doesn't even have size categories. Also I don't think they should shrink many creatures in the MM. Let's use the largest creatures in the MM for comparison, a great wyrm red/silver/god dragon. This dragon fills the Colossal size category to the very top at 128ft. Strip the wings off and its no bigger than an Argentinasaurus.

(Though it would cause massive rules havoc and require adaptation something akin to the GURPS size category system could be ported over to really hammer home that "size matters". Either that or have damage jump two steps per size category instead of one. Gets pretty ridiculous at the top end, but it would certainly make size matter.)

EDIT: Gargant-giant death robot built by Orks
 
Last edited:



Kunimatyu said:
I find it interesting that people instantly complained, instead of going "Awesome! We'll get a mini sooner AND it's more like the oldskool version!"
Thus one of the reasons that I have been trying to avoid the 4e forum as of late :\
 



Remove ads

Top