# Gargantuan



## Camelot (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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


----------



## twilsemail (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

Camelot said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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.


----------



## twilsemail (Jun 22, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


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




The Tarrasque has been described from 50 feet tall up to hundreds of feet tall. I think you're definitively wrong in your last statement.

The one about size vs. threat is entirely accurate though. I still feel like somthing as big as the Tarrasque just shouldn't take up those squares though.

Edit: Moreover, a Gargantuan creature is 4+ squares, not just 4 squares.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 22, 2010)

If you look at the Gargantuan Blue (or Black or White) Dragon mini next to a PC mini, you'll see that a Gargantuan creature is easily the size of a building. That's BIG, but still fightable


----------



## Aulirophile (Jun 22, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> The Tarrasque has been described from 50 feet tall up to hundreds of feet tall. I think you're definitively wrong in your last statement.
> 
> The one about size vs. threat is entirely accurate though. I still feel like somthing as big as the Tarrasque just shouldn't take up those squares though.
> 
> Edit: Moreover, a Gargantuan creature is 4+ squares, not just 4 squares.



Not in this edition. In previous editions? Sure. In 4e is he is 20'x'20'x20'


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 22, 2010)

Yeah, the PCs recently fought the Tarrasque in my game, and we ended up using one of the Gargantuan Dragon minis, which was successful. In the last session, they fought a gargantuan monster made of worms, which I actually put on some note cards to form a a 6 x 6 base, which was suitably impressive. 

Some upcoming events might pit them against their choice of demon lords, two of whom are Gargantuan Plus, so I've been pondering ways to handle them. Turaglas, an ooze dude, starts at 5x5 and can expand throughout the fight. I'm not sure what the best way to represent that would be. Codricuhn, who is trapped in an immense hole and trying to claw his way out of the Abyss - and is literally orbited by small planets filled with colonies of demons - I would probably handle him simply as part of the terrain. Have some places they can attack and from which he can attack from. Maybe have them change and shift during the fight. 

In the end, size isn't quite the game-changer it used to be, so you can afford to go with whatever you gut tells you. Want your Tarrasque to be 8 x 8 so you can use the enormous toy T-Rex you found on sale? Go for it. It isn't going to break the game, and if it helps make for a memorable encounter, then you've made the right call.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> Not in this edition. In previous editions? Sure. In 4e is he is 20'x'20'x20'




Well, I'm looking at my MM3 right now, and it disagrees with you. The entry for Gargantuan says "4x4 or larger" for space and "3 or 4" or typical reach. I'm 99% sure this has been the case since MM1. 

I really like the idea of making really stupendously huge creatures into some sort of composite/terrain/etc, pretty much an adventure all of their own.


----------



## Aulirophile (Jun 22, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I'm looking at my MM3 right now, and it disagrees with you. The entry for Gargantuan says "4x4 or larger" for space and "3 or 4" or typical reach. I'm 99% sure this has been the case since MM1.
> 
> I really like the idea of making really stupendously huge creatures into some sort of composite/terrain/etc, pretty much an adventure all of their own.



And then you take a short trip to the MM1 and the actual Tarrasque entry. 

Sure, DMs can make monsters as big as they want to, the DMG says that... but modules aren't written that way, and it'll never happen at an LFR event. There is nothing that states the Tarrasque is hundreds of feet of anything in 4e.


----------



## Lord Zack (Jun 22, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> Not in this edition. In previous editions? Sure. In 4e is he is 20'x'20'x20'




You're saying that like that would be a good thing. You really think the Tarrasque should be that small? Furthermore, look at the picture. Looks a lot bigger than 20 feet tall to me.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> And then you take a short trip to the MM1 and the actual Tarrasque entry.
> 
> Sure, DMs can make monsters as big as they want to, the DMG says that... but modules aren't written that way, and it'll never happen at an LFR event. There is nothing that states the Tarrasque is hundreds of feet of anything in 4e.




Nothing in the Tarrasque entry itself indicates a specific size, so by RAW its AT LEAST 4x4 squares. An LFR referee would be free to use whatever sized space for it that he wanted, unless there was a specific note in the module. It is whatever size it is. 

In any case we aren't talking about running it "by the book" here. It really doesn't matter. The question the OP asked was about how it should work. LFR has little to do with running actual games anyway, it's its own little universe. Not a terribly interesting one at that IMHO.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 22, 2010)

I realize that 4e is built for using a battlemat but I think this situation calls for that to be thrown out and let the gm describe how the PCs are situated or how the rogue just switched places with a village sized monster.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm currently working on a monster so big that it takes up one side of the battlemap, period. It can smash through blocking terrain and leave difficult terrain (rubble) behind). It is big and burly and bad news.


----------



## Camelot (Jun 22, 2010)

I took a closer look at the Tarrasque and had an epiphany.

Have only one mini, 5 x 5 squares, but it does not represent the Tarrasque.  It is the Tarrasque's enormous foot.  Other than that flavor description, it functions the same as the Tarrasque entry.  The Tarrasque can lean down and bite at the heroes at its feet, swipe them with its tail, and swing its foot to trample them.

You can run a whole adventure against the Tarrasque this way.  Battle it 4 times, 1 for each leg, and each time have different environmental factors or mini skill challenges that the players have to face while they battle.  Each time they beat a leg, the Tarrasque crumples closer to the ground.  In between each battle, they can hide and rest.  Finally, after the 4 battles, they can climb up the Tarrasque (since they can't fly; this can be a skill challenge) and destroy it, or at least make it sink back into the earth (which allows for another skill challenge while the players rush to avoid getting swallowed by the earth).

=)  I have a new campaign idea.  I'm sure similar things could be done for other collosal creatures.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 23, 2010)

A terrasque's size is supposed to intimidate PCs who are at the level where they are generally fighting (and prevailing) against things that destroy worlds?

Seriously.

That's like saying Devastator isn't scary enough to Rodimus Prime, while forgetting HE JUST DESTROYED UNICRON.


----------



## Markn (Jun 23, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> That's like saying Devastator isn't scary enough to Rodimus Prime, while forgetting HE JUST DESTROYED UNICRON.




DS,

You are getting far too Sci Fi for this thread.  Let me fix your quote for you:

That's like saying Devastator isn't scary enough to Rodimus Prime, while forgetting HE JUST DESTROYED _UNICORN_.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 23, 2010)

Markn said:


> DS,
> 
> You are getting far too Sci Fi for this thread.  Let me fix your quote for you:
> 
> That's like saying Devastator isn't scary enough to Rodimus Prime, while forgetting HE JUST DESTROYED _UNICORN_.




And here's Ramjet with my rebuttal.


----------



## Markn (Jun 23, 2010)

That's awesome!  I never pegged you as a Transformers fan!

Edit:  IIRC, that episode had something to do with a knight and planar/time travel didn't it?


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 23, 2010)

Markn said:


> That's awesome!  I never pegged you as a Transformers fan!
> 
> Edit:  IIRC, that episode had something to do with a knight and planar/time travel didn't it?




Yes.

And it had a glorious scene of Spike jousting on the back of Warpath.


And yes, I so am.


----------



## Markn (Jun 23, 2010)

Actually, I own the entire original Transformers series on DVD.  They so rocked.  It's been a few years since I watched them.

PS - Sorry for going off topic guys.  This was just too cool to ignore!


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 24, 2010)

Size categories are problematic, even at Medium; they become much more problematic as you look at larger categories.

Human adults are said to take up a 5'x5'x5' cube in D&D. Most humans are always "sticking out" the top of that cube, but are never affected by what happens in the cube their head is in; however, probably no humans are actually five feet across -- the extra space is implied to be the area around a person in which they move. Reach (melee 1) makes this even more complicated, because now our too-tall-too-skinny human can punch someone five feet away, anywhere within another 5'x5'x5' cube adjacent to the first one. Our humans are too tall, too skinny, and can reach too far.

A Gargantuan creature has the same problems, only much worse. If it's a "tall" creature (taller than it is wide), it's probably as much as twice as tall as it is wide, which means that a "20'x20'x20'" creature might actually supposed to be 40' (or more) tall... despite the fact that it doesn't technically occupy any of space above 20'.

Size categories are an abstraction. I recommend not thinking about it so much.

(PS: There comes a point when a sufficiently large monster should be treated as terrain. Think of the Tarrasque as a moving cliff that your players need to climb and hang on to during combat. Except that they'll be trying to kill this cliff.)


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 24, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Size categories are an abstraction. I recommend not thinking about it so much.




I find it easier to not think about when I consider the squares the creatures reside in to be abstractions themselves.

Hell, I had to look -hard- for a 'one square is five feet' rule.  Honestly, I just run it like I did 'turn length' in World of Darkness.  How long is a turn?  Anywhere between 3 seconds and 1 minute.  It's 'as long as it needs to be.'



> (PS: There comes a point when a sufficiently large monster should be treated as terrain. Think of the Tarrasque as a moving cliff that your players need to climb and hang on to during combat. Except that they'll be trying to kill this cliff.)


----------



## Zaran (Jun 24, 2010)

Markn said:


> Actually, I own the entire original Transformers series on DVD. They so rocked. It's been a few years since I watched them.
> 
> PS - Sorry for going off topic guys. This was just too cool to ignore!




Not off topic!  You can use a Sharkticon toy for the Tarresque mini!


----------



## Kingreaper (Jun 24, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> I find it easier to not think about when I consider the squares the creatures reside in to be abstractions themselves.
> 
> Hell, I had to look -hard- for a 'one square is five feet' rule.  Honestly, I just run it like I did 'turn length' in World of Darkness.  How long is a turn?  Anywhere between 3 seconds and 1 minute.  It's 'as long as it needs to be.'



Yep. I like this approach because it allows things like having a tactically interesting battle in a realistically sized room.

You're in a small room, so everyone has to make do with less space. So the squares are smaller.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Yep. I like this approach because it allows things like having a tactically interesting battle in a realistically sized room.
> 
> You're in a small room, so everyone has to make do with less space. So the squares are smaller.




Yeah, to a certain extent I think its pretty reasonable to just consider squares/cubes to be a bit abstract. On top of that a 5x5' area is large enough that often you can rationalize things based on where in the square the creature is. You don't have to assume someone has to reach 5' to hit something in the next square, they could easily need to reach 3" depending on where everyone is positioned. Height is kind of the same sort of thing. A square is "as tall as the ordinary medium sized combatants" etc. So something that happens a square up above the ground is "over everyone's heads", maybe that's not exactly 5' but whatever. Maybe sometimes people duck a bit. Maybe sometimes they get their hair scorched too.


----------



## Verision (Jun 24, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Nothing in the Tarrasque entry itself indicates a specific size, so by RAW its AT LEAST 4x4 squares. .





There is one thing in the Tarrasque entry (unless there is errata that I am unaware of) that does give a good indication of size, though it is unspecific.

"Earthbinding: Auara 40; any flying creature in the aura has its fly speed reduced to 1 and maximum altitude reduced to _*20 FEET (PUTTING IT WITHIN THE TARRASQUE'S REACH*_)"
(emphasis mine)

That, to me, makes it sound like the Tarrasque is about 20 feet tall, not hundreds of feet (or even 100') tall. Though, that doesn't mean you can't make it as crazy huge as you want to.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 24, 2010)

Verision said:


> "Earthbinding: Auara 40; any flying creature in the aura has its fly speed reduced to 1 and maximum altitude reduced to _*20 FEET (PUTTING IT WITHIN THE TARRASQUE'S REACH*_)"
> (emphasis mine)




Man, they couldn't come up with a better way to eliminate Flight as a bypass for this encounter?


----------



## Camelot (Jun 24, 2010)

Or why fireballs are squares.

Still, if players at level 30 are getting a bit cocky, it's good technique to give 'em a bit of a scare.

PS: Shadow of the Collosus, very nice.  I had thought of that earlier, just didn't mention it.  Fun game!


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 25, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> There comes a point when a sufficiently large monster should be treated as terrain. Think of the Tarrasque as a moving cliff that your players need to climb and hang on to during combat. Except that they'll be trying to kill this cliff.




Exactly.  Towards the end of my last campaign, my time-traveling PCs had a fight against the first dragon.  I had already established the size of this beast, since my PCs had already had a major battle in the dwarven temple made out of this dragon's skeleton.  

So, I used the dragon as a battlemap.  The PCs on the back were safe from the dragons claws or bite, but were extremely vulnerable to being scraped off.  If the PCs tried to get near a more vulnerable spot, they had claws and teeth to be careful of.  And, of course, on other parts of the dragon, it was more difficult to stay on-board.  Falling off wasn't deadly for flying PCs per se, but the dragon's tail was a considerable hazard.  The scattering panic when the PCs realized that (A) the dragon could breath on its own back and (B) the breath weapon would take out level 15 Protection from Elements in a single shot was, IMHO, delightful.

-KS

P.S.  Your players will like it if you run a battles in which they fight _*on*_ a humongous monster.  As for battles that take place _*in*_ a humongous monster... not so much.


----------



## Shin Okada (Jun 25, 2010)

By RAW, gargantuan = 4 squares x 4 squares x 4 squares or larger.

On the table. Use whatever mini which looks good and big enough to let players say "wow!". Then give it appropriately sized base which can support it (if it does not have already).

I have a nice dragon mini from The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, which is about 2-foot long. When I use this mini as some wingless dragon (some kind of drake?), I will use at least 12-inch by 12-inch base so that 4 legs can be put on it.


----------



## MortalPlague (Jun 25, 2010)

KidSnide said:


> P.S.  Your players will like it if you run a battles in which they fight _*on*_ a humongous monster.  As for battles that take place _*in*_ a humongous monster... not so much.




What if the battle progresses from _on_ the humongous monster to _in_ the humongous monster?


----------



## Davedamon (Jul 30, 2010)

I've been contemplating this issue for my d&d campaign I'm running. I want the players to fight a huge spider, but am being heavily inspired by Lost Planet 2, namely where you shoot out the legs of a giant creature. My idea is to have 8 'legs' models, each one large in size. The players can attack the legs directly, or make ranged attacks verses the main 'body' which is always 25 feet above the ground.
Each leg has its own hit points, equal to 1/4 of the spiders total HP, the idea being that 'killing' 4 legs is sufficient to kill the spider itself. 
Each let has its int order and can make attacks focused on moving each leg (sweeping attacks/pinning attacks etc)
What's everyones idea on this? I'm working on a stat block for this as I type this.


----------



## darkadelphia (Jul 31, 2010)

Davedamon said:


> I've been contemplating this issue for my d&d campaign I'm running. I want the players to fight a huge spider, but am being heavily inspired by Lost Planet 2, namely where you shoot out the legs of a giant creature. My idea is to have 8 'legs' models, each one large in size. The players can attack the legs directly, or make ranged attacks verses the main 'body' which is always 25 feet above the ground.
> Each leg has its own hit points, equal to 1/4 of the spiders total HP, the idea being that 'killing' 4 legs is sufficient to kill the spider itself.
> Each let has its int order and can make attacks focused on moving each leg (sweeping attacks/pinning attacks etc)
> What's everyones idea on this? I'm working on a stat block for this as I type this.




There's an XBox Live Arcade game called Limbo.  In the first stage, you have a spider that you contest with throughout--each time removing one of it's legs.  At the end of the stage, the spider crawls up behind you dragging its bulbous body on one leg.  A well timed dodge allows you to grab and pull off the last leg.  Then, the best part, you roll the body down a hill into a pit of spikes to finish the creature off AND use it as a platform to get to the next stage.  A tangent, but perhaps inspirational?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2010)

Davedamon said:


> I've been contemplating this issue for my d&d campaign I'm running. I want the players to fight a huge spider, but am being heavily inspired by Lost Planet 2, namely where you shoot out the legs of a giant creature. My idea is to have 8 'legs' models, each one large in size. The players can attack the legs directly, or make ranged attacks verses the main 'body' which is always 25 feet above the ground.
> Each leg has its own hit points, equal to 1/4 of the spiders total HP, the idea being that 'killing' 4 legs is sufficient to kill the spider itself.
> Each let has its int order and can make attacks focused on moving each leg (sweeping attacks/pinning attacks etc)
> What's everyones idea on this? I'm working on a stat block for this as I type this.




Should work fine.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jul 31, 2010)

I also have found the gargantuan monsters described in the MMs a bit unsatisfactory.

I think that past a certain point it doesn't make a lot of sense to just represent it tactically on the battlefield.  The PCs may be level 30, but they still have to hit things.  How are they going to hit a creature whose head is half a mile up in the air?

I've been pretty disappointed with the official advice, which appears explicitly in the Allabar entry: shrink it down.  Really, WotC?  The players get to fight a planet (awesome) but your solution to the logistical problems is to miniaturize it?  Not awesome.  A planet that fits comfortably on a 4x4 square of the battlefield isn't any more special than any other XXL monster.

I think that ever since the Tarrasque players have been coming up with more interesting ways to handle supersized monsters.  A lot are mentioned in this thread.  

Personally I really think Shadow of the Colossus represents the way I want players to have to fight a gargantuan monster: represent the monster as terrain.  Combine it with a skill challenge or a group of skill challenges.  Give it weak points that the players actually have to reach and do battle with individually (like the spider legs).  In other words, it's a multi-stage monster-as-terrain encounter combined with a skill challenge.

That seems much cooler and much more satisfying, but you're on your own to figure out how it's all going to work.  MM3 presents the _first_ multi-stage monster that I'm aware of, and I don't believe WotC has even discussed monster-as-terrain or monster-as-skill-challenge, unless it was in Dragon somewhere.

That is what I'd really like to see in a future Monster Manual or some other book: representing epic battles with gargantuan monsters in some way OTHER than a block of squares on the battle grid.


----------

