Why did Dragons shrink?

[Umbran]

"realism"(i hate that word as it relates to gaming..

That, in fact, is why I used the word "plausible". All we really require is that the image have some small modicum of reason to it. It need not be "realistic". It merely must fail to grab my willful suspension of disbelief and beat me over the head with it

 

[The Serge]

They shrank them so gamers who use figs and grids could have represent the dragon on the grid.

A map with .5 square inch grids would have a hard time accomodating something over 100 feet long, especially with character figs and other associated tokens. Furthermore, a creature the size of a football field would have an outrageous reach!

Some monsters, like Krakens, still are incredibly long, but many DMs will use "traditional" encounters for them. The aforemention Kraken will likely be mostly submerged, extending its tentacles from the water to slap PCs around.

 

[Piratecat]

Reach and size rules must play a part in it. The larger the creature, the bigger its reach... and the deadlier it gets.

 

[S'mon]

They shrank them so gamers who use figs and grids could have represent the dragon on the grid.

A map with .5 square inch grids would have a hard time accomodating something over 100 feet long, especially with character figs and other associated tokens. Furthermore, a creature the size of a football field would have an outrageous reach!

Some monsters, like Krakens, still are incredibly long, but many DMs will use "traditional" encounters for them. The aforemention Kraken will likely be mostly submerged, extending its tentacles from the water to slap PCs around.

I think this is it - it's so we can actually use our dragon miniatures to represent dragons in combat. Eg my Great Fire Dragon mini is at the small end of 'Huge' size per the rules, about 20' from nose to base (not tip) of tail - making it a good yound adult or adult red, or a small mature adult. And 200' dragons are a bit silly unless it's an Epic game, I once saw a 2e dragon killed by 200 oth-level bandits attacking its flank...

 

[the Jester]

Dragons didn't shrink in 3e, they just take longer to grow to their full size. (Check out the "virtual age category" stuff in the ELH.)

 

[alsih2o]

That, in fact, is why I used the word "plausible". All we really require is that the image have some small modicum of reason to it. It need not be "realistic". It merely must fail to grab my willful suspension of disbelief and beat me over the head with it

umbran, please understand that my using quotes on realism had absolutely nothing to do with your use of the word plausible or your post for that matter.

no offense was intended. any and all of the things you said were far from my mind when i posted, trust me.

 

[Umbran]

no offense was intended. any and all of the things you said were far from my mind when i posted, trust me.

No worries. No offense taken. My apologies if my tone was off. I was just using the opportunity you presented to extoll the virtues of the word "plausible" over "realistic" for many gaming uses.

 

[Grazzt]

It's size is Gargantuan. The 3E MM says 32 to 64 feet from nose to base of tail.

Chris

Not sure about dragons per se, but size does not include the monster's tail. Look at the basilisk. It is a Medium-size creature, being 6 feet long with a tail length of an additional 5-7 feet. There are other monsters in the MM listed this way as well. So, unless dragons are the exception, size doesnt include tail length.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Actually...

It's bothered me before, but in the campaign I play in, the DM is an ardent grognard, and uses 2e sizes for his dragons. The dragons in his game are skinny lil worm-things that wind and slither like wisps of smoke, which is how he justifies their comparitively small size category. It's kind of cool - It makes for a very non-traditional dragon archetype.

 

[Danzilla]

They had to do something to stop people from trying to build cities on their backs...