No More Gargantuan?

[justanobody]

Well, that's 10 year old memory for you.

It happens. That is why I didn't rib too much about it. I don't recall any "G" size in 1st edition, but sure it was probably added there first.

Otherwise see the reasoning for not liking "Plastic Logic" for why I don't feel tossing out size categories makes much since, as well the thread this was forked from....

1- I love minis. I don't always use them and would like to have them should I choose to use them for the most common needed things.

2- I don't need minis for everything, and a solo monster is often the thing you would need a mini for least.

3- Bigger than Huge probably should be solo only if you are using minis, or you need to switch to something like 40k Epic scale minis to allow for more to fit on your miniature surface.

Visual aids like minis are nice, but shouldn't dictate ANYTHING within the game rules. I have a dragon "mini" that I can use for "C" size if I want and it cost less than a DDM booster. It is a Halloween decoration.

So you can find the grossly oversized minis for things outside of needing the brand name.

I have no place to put a mini of Ao as it would be as tall as me to be to scale with DDM minis.

 

[ferratus]

As for Shadow of the Colossus type battles, it would take either an overhaul of the system, or treating a monster like a dungeon. Each "encounter area" is part of either the monster or the fight, evolving as the fight progresses.

Well, treating a gargantuan creature as an encounter area, and colossal creatures as a dungeon.

I have a dungeon tile room that is pretty much exactly the same size as a gargantuan creature. The new H series and P series modules have poster-maps for play. Therefore, you could very easily create a creature of colossal or gargantuan size within a module or sourcebook, and include the tile or map along with it.

It's doable, but frankly, the current way of killing her is much more D&D.
She's not simple, tarrasque-like, or anything of the sort.

I think they did just fine creating Tiamat as a hand to hand dragon fight ends when you stick a lance into her. But facing off against creatures so large you have to climb on them to attack them? What's not fantasy/D&Dish about that?

Heck, that would mean we would get to do what Legolas does to the Oliphant in the Lord of the Rings movies.

What's more 4e D&D, despite leveling up and unlocking powers at higher level, doesn't really change much as you go up in levels. There should be rules for owning strongholds, playing politics and commanding armies at paragon level, and their should be rules for colossal combat at epic levels.

The dungeon crawl will always be the base of the experience and I'm not complaining that we don't have these rules in the first three books, but I'd be pretty disappointed if the dungeon crawl was all 4e D&D is ever going to give me.

 

[Shemeska]

Because we should really alter elements within the game world to adhere to using or not using plastic minis...

Minis and rules should serve the game and campaign world, not the other way around.

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, I'd rather crawl around a tarrasque than crawl around on Tiamat. Tiamat should be all about dodging heads, breath weapons, and claws.

Huge size for Tiamat works for me if the ancient dragons are huge sized too. Huge size Orcus and other demon lords also seems okay to me.

Once you are as big as a house (which huge size is) hand to hand combat is pretty much at the upper limits of absurd for setting both a cinematic scene and for realism. So a monster should be made gargantuan if you want to present a unique combat experience like you were suggesting.

I'd probably have fewer problems with that. I mean, I'd still want a giant dragon god to run around on and stab in the soft spot, and I'd still like a fight with a god to be fundamentally different from a fight with another monster, but eh...

As for "plastic logic", you are being a little too smug by half. There is nothing wrong with enjoying minis play, nor for WotC to cater to their audience that enjoys using minis, since we pump quite a bit of money into the coffers to support the whole show. If minis are a significant part of their revenue stream, of course they are going to use models to help them sell miniatures.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying minis play.

There is something a little wonky with designing the D&D game around minis play primarily.

It raelly adds fuel to the "This is a board game/minis skirmish game/tactical combat game!" fire. D&D has never before really had its imagination limited by what can be cheaply modeled in plastic. That Tiamat (or anything else) can't be gargantuan because they can't/won't make a profit off of a gargantuan-sized plastic toy is dumb.

But regardless, there are elegant ways to solve both of our problems, when 5e rolls around.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Oh, I'm happy to see lower size cap. Once critters reach a certain size, they should be modelled as terrain or combination of critters, tied together.

Basically, if you're 100 ft long, a human whacking your tail repeatedly shouldn't kill you. He should, instead, climb on you and try to combat you differently.

Cheers, LT.

 

[JackSmithIV]

That Tiamat (or anything else) can't be gargantuan because they can't/won't make a profit off of a gargantuan-sized plastic toy is dumb.

My god, are we still stuck on the idea that Wizards is now designing their tabletop roleplaying game to cater to their minis because they made a very minor adjustment to one creature on one page of one sourcebook in order to please those who might have an Aspect of Tiamat mini? I feel like every time the question comes up, people forget that the conversation at Wizards probably went a little something like this:

"Hmmm, what size should she be... well, there's a mini out for Aspect of Tiamat, so if we make her huge, all of the people who have the miniture will be able to use it to represent her. No biggie! I think they'll appreciate that accomidation!"

Instead, it seems like everyone thinks this is going on:

"Hmmm, what size should she be... oh, I know, she should be whatever size the miniture is! If we keep making everything the size of minitures, people will buy more and more and more of our products. Those stupid saps... and they think we care about Dungeons & Dragons..."

But regardless, there are elegant ways to solve both of our problems, when 5e rolls around.

Yeah, like the release of the next edition is going to be some judgement day where everyone is going to be happy and there will be no edition wars.

 

[Turjan]

Basically, if you're 100 ft long, a human whacking your tail repeatedly should kill you.

I just assume that there's a "not" missing. In a certain sense, CRPGs made me realize how ridiculous the assumption of medium creatures fighting gargantuan or colossal monsters is. It should be more like bee stings to the monster.

 

[justanobody]

My god, are we still stuck on the idea that Wizards is now designing their tabletop roleplaying game to cater to their minis because they made a very minor adjustment to one creature on one page of one sourcebook in order to please those who might have an Aspect of Tiamat mini?

Judge Tiamat by her size, do you?

The main reason for making her Huge is so the miniature corresponds to using her as either an aspect or her true form (because if you're fighting a final battle against a deity, it'd be nice to have a cool visual representation of it). Of course, there's no problem making her bigger or smaller if it fits your needs better.

Oddly we aren't stuck on the idea, but were told that is the exact reason it was done. So WotC must be stuck on the idea that the rules must be made for the miniature combat simulation game that 4th edition is.

 

[Fifth Element]

Oddly we aren't stuck on the idea, but were told that is the exact reason it was done.

1. We were told what the main reason was, not the only reason.

2. It still fits in JackSmithIV's interpretation. Saying the game is now being designed to suit the minis implies that's what they will be doing in the future for all monsters. But in fact we're only talking about one, which already has a mini out there.

 

[justanobody]

1. We were told what the main reason was, not the only reason.

2. It still fits in JackSmithIV's interpretation. Saying the game is now being designed to suit the minis implies that's what they will be doing in the future for all monsters. But in fact we're only talking about one, which already has a mini out there.

In your monster manual can you locate any mini related monster that does NOT conform to the mini, or any other 4th edition publication?

Do all "monsters" match the mini form the DDM line of products?

Do the "monsters" need to match the DDM line of products?

• an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time
• An act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future