So I don't know if I'm the only one who cares, but a lot of monsters in 5th edition changed sizes. And here I don't mean all the former colossals becoming gargantuan, or smaller than tinies becoming tiny, which is of course only because the size spectrum has been reduced. And even the changes to the carious age categories of dragons I can understand.
But there are a lot of other creatures in the Monster Manual and Volo's Guide that have changed sizes since 3rd edition.
Here is what i can think of:
Aboleths, Bulettes, Nalfeshnee and Glabrezu demons went from Huge to Large
Balors, Hill Giants, Fire Giants, Frost Giants and Stone Giants went from Large to Huge.
Yeth Hounds grew from Medium to Large.
What really bothers me about this is that all this really means is that I have a lot of Pawns that are just the wrong size for the 5e incarnation, and I can't be the only one (especially thinking of people who invested in plastic miniatures).
|
I think that there were some thematic reasons. Giants were specifically made larger because the developers didn't think that they were truly "Giant" if they shared the same size category with say, ogres and trolls and horses.
As for the other creatures, I am not sure. I imagine that there is some better reason that I'm not privy to, but I think that 5th edition works in such a way that the creatures can still do everything that they do without being the former size, and maybe even better as the new size. Aboleths, for instance, are just as menacing while being large, and can probably be more agile that way (in terms of actually chasing and moving about tight corridors).
That is too bad for the pawns. I feel for you. On the other hand, I can't wait to get my hands on some huge sized giants.
Also, I think there is a large sized bulette from the early-mid 2000's D&D minis line. For what that's worth. Same for the aboleth.
I can't help you with the demon/devil size changes. Hopefully those get new D&D minis releases.
I feel your pain though. That'd be super frustrating.
I forgot about cyclopes, which also went from Large to Huge
I do have a few pawns that can stand in for some of the creatures:
Sun Giants as Fire giants, Taiga Giants as stone giants and a rune giant that coul pass for a hill giant, Greater Cyclops for cyclops, Veiled Master Aboleth for aboleths and a few others.
But that's just a few patchwork solutions with lots of really nice pawns still useless.
I'm thinking of running at least the giants as Large with their own statblocks so I don't have to limit my selection of pawns. Maybe treat the Huge monster manual versions, as greater variants in my homebrew setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the giants, it was actually 3e that changed their sizes. In previous editions, they ranged from 12' to 20' tall, which is comfortably in Huge territory. Only hill giants could really be considered Large, and they are considerably bigger than ogres and trolls. Cyclops, also, 20' tall in previous editions.
Aboleths, Bulettes, Nalfeshnee and Glabrezu demons went from Huge to Large
I think this was mainly for thematics, and also for how they are commonly depicted. My D&D minis have the Huge demons looking kind of small on their bases.
The AD&D monster manual described bulettes as having considerable variation in size. I think they probably decided the Large version was generally more useful, and fit in better with the usual depiction of them launching through the air. I'm not sure I would have made this change, but I'm okay with it. Keep in mind that the original bulette was a plastic figure about 1 1/4" long, which would be Large in comparison to standard miniature size.
The aboleth is the only one that seems really arbitrary, and it doesn't change how it functions in combat much. So, yay, cheaper minis going forward.
They may have made some changes to size in order to get the HP goal they wanted for the monster.
What do you mean by HP goal? It seems overkill to change something as tangible as the size category to adjust for something as unnoticable as a margin of some 10 to 20 HP
While the HD follow some patterns in relation to 3e stats, there are several monsters they just arbitrarily changed to a number they wanted, so I am skeptical of hit points goals being involved.
While the HD follow some patterns in relation to 3e stats, there are several monsters they just arbitrarily changed to a number they wanted, so I am skeptical of hit points goals being involved.
I've not looked especially close at the monsters per se, but since hit die are based off from size in 5e, there actually is a legitimate correlation between a creatures size and how many hit points it can have. Not saying that's why they did it, but that correlation is built right into the rules system for monsters.
I like that they made giants huge, except that it does make minis a lot trickier. However since I pretty much game on roll20 these days that doesn't matter to me very much.
Balors were large in 3e and huge in 4e. I have a huge balor mini and a large balor mini.
I have large sized aboleth minis from 4e. I think in 3e they were huge.
I have both a large and huge sized bulette mini.
When I think about it, the increase in giant size is the only real change that I was really noticing, and I thought it was a good move. Previously ogre and hill giants basically seemed the same in terms of size (especially their minis), so it seemed weird that hill giants were generally so much tougher than ogres.
Anyhow its not that hard to switch the sizes to how you want them, it's your game. Make the game work for you and your mini collection. It's easy to convert the HD from 10s to d12s or whatever you need to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best move we made when switching to 5e, was to stop using grid and miniatures. Combat are more fluid, take less time and look less like a tactical game, which suit best our group.
One of the best move we made when switching to 5e, was to stop using grid and miniatures. Combat are more fluid, take less time and look less like a tactical game, which suit best our group.
I'm glad it works that way for you and your group. I prefer high stakes and difficult combat scenarios but also giving the players as much control and as clear a picture of the battle as possible and that is basically impossible without miniatures. Especially when it comes to ranges and areas of effect. The DM has to arbitrate who would get hit by the AOE if there isn't a clear depiction of the battlefield situation. And that either means the players may get the feeling that the DM is fudging against them, or the DM has to go easy and always rle in favor of the party which is opposite to how I run combat. So I need the miniatures.
I'm actually not using a grid by the way, but gridless battlefield, using inch measures instead of squares and hexes. It also works quite well. And honestly, compared to the time spent rolling, adding numbers together and looking up rules, the movement, measuring ranges and placing AOE templates consumes very little time. With grid or without.
We also use laminated battlemaps and minis. Mainly because I've spent so much on preprinted it seems a waste not to use them. Also the maps are so beautiful. Now and Mike Schely has high resolution printable maps on his website for a dollar or two which are perfect for larger maps without all the DM info on.
I don't think these are necessary to play the game, but my god do they enhance the experience, for all the reasons three shades plays.