PDA

View Full Version : Larger than Colossal



PersonMan
2009-11-15, 01:45 PM
I'm wondering if there's a size category higher than colossal. The thing I want to stat out is insanely huge. It's about twice the height of a medium-size parking lot building.

If you're wondering what it is or if I didn't describe it very well, you can find it here. (http://decembersoul.deviantart.com/art/Mecha-7906148)

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-15, 01:49 PM
I think I remember references to Colossal+ or something.

Maybe from Dracominion? (Or whatever it is)

Closak
2009-11-15, 01:52 PM
There's Titanic.

The following is from the Immortals handbook

And one category bigger than Titanic is Macro-fine.
Then Macro-Diminuitive.
It keeps going all the way through the categories again but with Macro at the start.

Then eventually you get to Macro-Titanic.

The next step after that is to start over again with Mega at the start.

Mega-Fine.
Mega-Diminuitive.

And the biggest is Mega-Titanic.

Eloel
2009-11-15, 01:52 PM
The size categories, starting from Medium, going up, are;

Medium
Large
Huge
Gargantuan
Colossal
Colossal+
Colossal++
Colossal+++
Colossal++++
Colossal+++++
.
.
.

I believe you get the point

Edit:

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/dragonEpic.htm#forceDragon)'s proof


Check Great Wyrm, and see Colossal+

Nate the Snake
2009-11-15, 02:43 PM
There's Titanic.

The problem with that is that the MM2 has the Titanic template, which makes the base creature Gargantuan. So Titanic-sized creatures are actually smaller than Colossal.

Colossal+ is more fun anyway, since it basically means "so big we don't have a word for it." So a Colossal+ dragon is indescribably huge. :smallbiggrin:


And one category bigger than Titanic is Macro-fine.
Then Macro-Diminuitive.
It keeps going all the way through the categories again but with Macro at the start.

Then eventually you get to Macro-Titanic.

The next step after that is to start over again with Mega at the start.

:smalleek:

What would actually be that ridiculously enormous? Sentient planes?

Arakune
2009-11-15, 02:50 PM
The problem with that is that the MM2 has the Titanic template, which makes the base creature Gargantuan. So Titanic-sized creatures are actually smaller than Colossal.

Colossal+ is more fun anyway, since it basically means "so big we don't have a word for it." So a Colossal+ dragon is indescribably huge. :smallbiggrin:



:smalleek:

What would actually be that ridiculously enormous? Sentient planes?

Sentient ATARS. Something around that from immortal handbook. Either that or simply sentient galaxies...

jokey665
2009-11-15, 02:51 PM
I don't think a size category exists to adequately describe the final form of Gurren Lagann.

chiasaur11
2009-11-15, 03:02 PM
I don't think a size category exists to adequately describe the final form of Gurren Lagann.

Size category: Awesome.

Grumman
2009-11-15, 03:07 PM
I don't think a size category exists to adequately describe the final form of Gurren Lagann.
I believe the Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagaan would be a Colossal+++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++ construct.

SurlySeraph
2009-11-15, 03:17 PM
What would actually be that ridiculously enormous? Sentient planes?

Well, this one is. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/2873260-post1.html)

Volos
2009-11-15, 03:32 PM
The picture you just showed was something that was probably of Colossal size anyways... check the rules on the sizes, he probably isn't as big as you think. -refering to the picture provided in the first post-

ericgrau
2009-11-15, 03:37 PM
Colossal+ just means >colossal.

I'd just continue the pattern for all size modifiers.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-15, 04:26 PM
For what needs Mega-titanic size, Mechanus. When it forms into a plane-sized inevitable due to someone killing enough modrons.

Ormur
2009-11-15, 08:25 PM
The biggest animal ever known to have existed, the blue whale, is probably the only animal we know of that reached colossal size, being more than 64ft long and weighing more than 125 tons as per d20srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm). The largest land dinosaurs might have reached that size category by length but not by size. So everything larger than gargantuan is friking huge.

The size categories for length or height seem to follow 2 to the order of x so if colossal is 64ft+ then colossal+ would be 128ft+ in either length or height, Colossal++ would be 256ft etc.

Talbot
2009-11-15, 08:59 PM
So what size would, say, Godzilla be? He's well over 128 feet tall, isn't he?

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-15, 09:05 PM
So what size would, say, Godzilla be? He's well over 128 feet tall, isn't he?Up from the depths
30 stories high
Breathing fire
He stands in the sky
GODZILLA!
GODZILLA!
GODZILLA!

And Godzuki KILL IT WITH FIRE

AshDesert
2009-11-15, 09:19 PM
To be honest, the artwork provided looks like a Colossal creature. It might be big enough to qualify as Colossal+/Titanic/whatever you want to call it, but I'd just call it Colossal and leave it at that in that situation.

ranagrande
2009-11-15, 10:00 PM
In Munchkin D20, Ludicrous is bigger than Colossal.

KillianHawkeye
2009-11-15, 10:34 PM
The picture you just showed was something that was probably of Colossal size anyways... check the rules on the sizes, he probably isn't as big as you think. -refering to the picture provided in the first post-

Judging from the 8 story building that comes up to its waist, I'd say it's in the neighborhood of 150 feet tall. That's significantly bigger than the average range for Colossal-sized creatures in D&D.

Of course, since this is clearly not a D&D-related creature, I would say that you'd use a system that's designed to handle things on that scale. For example, Star Wars Saga Edition has 3 subcategories of the Colossal size which are used for the various starships and things. They are Colossal (frigate), Colossal (cruiser), and Colossal (station). As with D&D's Colossal+ size category, the size penalties stop increasing past the initial Colossal phase, however there are some other aspects of the system which make use of the extra size categories.

AslanCross
2009-11-15, 11:13 PM
I believe Godzilla is 100 meters tall by canon. That would be approximately 330 feet.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-16, 12:15 AM
Actually, internets say you are both more-or-less right. The Original version of Godzilla was a mere 50 meters tall, but his less black-and-white successor was 80, and later 100 meters tall.

root9125
2009-11-16, 12:31 AM
Another vote for calling it "Ludicrous".

Nate the Snake
2009-11-16, 12:41 AM
Well, this one is. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/2873260-post1.html)

:eek:
Wow... Just wow.

I love the fact that every other number is nigh-infinite, but its deflection bonus to AC is only +38. :biggrin:

hamishspence
2009-11-16, 03:56 AM
The biggest animal ever known to have existed, the blue whale, is probably the only animal we know of that reached colossal size, being more than 64ft long and weighing more than 125 tons as per d20srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm). The largest land dinosaurs might have reached that size category by length but not by size. So everything larger than gargantuan is friking huge.

The size categories for length or height seem to follow 2 to the order of x so if colossal is 64ft+ then colossal+ would be 128ft+ in either length or height, Colossal++ would be 256ft etc.

Amphicoelias fragillimus and Bruhathkysaurus are both estimated to exceed 125 short tons. However both are very, very fragmentary, and still somewhat disputed (and the vertebra for Amphicoelias was lost.

The Bowhead whale, at up to 66 ft long and 150 tons in weight, is Colossal by weight, at least.

64 ft for quadrupeds (whales have remnants of the rear legs, even if they don't project outside the body) usually means "to the base of tail"

This could be, for whales, where the "back vertebrae" end and the "tail vertebrae" begin- roughly at the vent.

Ormur
2009-11-16, 04:46 AM
Hmmm, yes Bowhead Whales would be colossal too and if those size estimates for the largest dinosaurs are right so would they. Of course the size categories are mostly intended to account for reach so I don't know if the tail of animals with proportionately big ones should be factored in, it can be used as a weapon. I also wonder if the SRD figures are short tons or metric tons. The difference could be significant for determining the size category of Amphicoelias. I always think in metric so when I see the word "ton" I think 1000 kg. Because of the (very annoying) almost exclusive use of WOTC of the imperial system I suppose it's more likely to be 907 kg.

Anyway, colossal seems to be the exception and absolutely the upper limit when it comes to size in the animal kingdom.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-16, 04:54 AM
Hmmm, yes Bowhead Whales would be colossal too and if those size estimates for the largest dinosaurs are right so would they. Of course the size categories are mostly intended to account for reach so I don't know if the tail of animals with proportionately big ones should be factored in, it can be used as a weapon. I also wonder if the SRD figures are short tons or metric tons. The difference could be significant for determining the size category of Amphicoelias. I always think in metric so when I see the word "ton" I think 1000 kg. Because of the (very annoying) almost exclusive use of WOTC of the imperial system I suppose it's more likely to be 907 kg.

Anyway, colossal seems to be the exception and absolutely the upper limit when it comes to size in the animal kingdom.

Not just animals have sizes.

What's the size of the empire state building?

hamishspence
2009-11-16, 05:12 AM
Most of the time, when figures are given, they are given for both.

The weight estimates for Amphicoelias were 122 metric tonnes, 135 short tons.

D&D uses the short ton (1 short ton = 2000 pounds)

When it comes to size, one of the problems is that D&D base sizes do not scale at the rate that lengths from nose to base of tail (or from feet to top of head, for bipeds) do.

Resulting in very cramped-looking figures- a Huge eldritch giant from the War of the Dragon Queen set positively towers over its base.

the Colossal dragon miniature, despite the fact that Colossal, and even Colossal+, dragons normally have a 30 ft base, has a 40 ft base.

Possibly as a result of this problem.

If weight is considered only a guideline, the fin whale (at 88 ft long) is also a good candidate for Colossal size. You could put it on a 30 ft base, give it 30 ft reach for both a head slam and a tail slap, and it would still be a feasible Colossal creature.

hamishspence
2009-11-16, 05:20 AM
A good example of weight being ignored- the Dragon Magazine 318 dinosaurs. Colossal for a 90 ft Diplodocus is a little overgenerous. Especially when, thanks to recent research on sauropod weight, it was probably in the vicinity of 11 short tons in weight.

Same would apply to Gargantuan for a Giganotosaurus- weight and length estimates are currently around 40-41 ft long and 5 tons for the holotype, and 43.8 ft long and 6 tons for the specimen that they only have a fragment of jawbone for.

Basically- it's T. rex sized in length, and slightly lighter in weight. The longest mounted T. rex is slightly longer at 42 ft compared to the mounted Gigantosaurus in various museums, and there is a T. rex skull even bigger than that of the mounted specimen (59 inches long compared to the 55 inches long of "Sue".

Even within core, some creatures are a little lighter than their size category would indicate- the roc in particular.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-16, 05:24 AM
A good example of weight being ignored- the Dragon Magazine 318 dinosaurs. Colossal for a 90 ft Diplodocus is a little overgenerous. Especially when, thanks to recent research on sauropod weight, it was probably in the vicinity of 11 short tons in weight.

Same would apply to Gargantuan for a Giganotosaurus- weight and length estimates are currently around 40-41 ft long and 5 tons for the holotype, and 43.8 ft long and 6 tons for the specimen that they only have a fragment of jawbone for.

Even within core, some creatures are a little lighter than their size category would indicate- the roc in particular.For fliers, the loss of weight is justified. Especially if they are expected to bear loads, they'll have as few wasted pounds as possible.

As for the errors on dinosaurs, remember the MMI was written several years ago. Paleontology has advanced since then. There may be disparities between the modern numbers and the ones available at the time of printing.

Or WotC could be full of idiots.

hamishspence
2009-11-16, 05:28 AM
Or Paizo, in the Diplodocus case.

They also insisted on making T. rex Gargantuan, with a 20 ft space and reach, in Pathfinder.

Wizards at least put Spinosaurus as 60 ft Gargantuan way back in 2002, before the reports on the actual new fossils started being published, confirming an upper length estimate of around 60 ft.

Which is surprisingly prescient on their part.

I can live with flyers being underweight. And the nose to base of tail length given for the roc was 30 ft- close enough to the 32 ft minimum to be given a pass.

Wizards also managed to revise the Deinonychus downward to Medium eventually- in online errata to 3.5.

hamishspence
2009-11-16, 08:48 AM
When it comes to sizing, especially for long-bodied creatures, I tend to ask myself, rather than "how heavy is it":

"Does it fit inside Space + Long Reach fore and aft"?

a 108 ft blue whale doesn't, for ordinary 30 ft Colossal. Thus justifying giving it a 40 ft colossal base.

My size estimates for rorqual whales- at the large end of each whale's size range:

Blue Whale: 30 ft head slam, 40 ft Space, 40 ft tail slam
Fin Whale: 30 ft head slam, 30 ft Space, 30 ft tail slam
Pygmy Blue Whale: 20 ft head slam, 30 ft Space, 30 ft tail slam
Sei Whale: 20 ft head slam, 20 ft Space, 20 ft tail slam
Bryde's Whale: 15 ft head slam, 20 ft Space, 15 ft tail slam
Humpback Whale: 15 ft head slam, 20 ft Space, 15 ft tail slam
Eden's Whale: 10 ft head slam, 15 ft Space, 15 ft tail slam
Minke Whale: 10 ft head slam, 15 ft Space, 10 ft tail slam

The other baleen whales:

Bowhead: 20 ft head slam, 30 ft Space, 20 ft tail slam
Right Whale (all regions): 20 ft head slam, 20 ft Space, 20 ft tail slam
Gray Whale: 15 ft head slam, 20 ft Space, 15 ft tail slam
Pygmy Right Whale: 5 ft head slam, 10 ft Space, 5 ft tail slam

Person_Man
2009-11-16, 09:41 AM
I don't know any DM that would let you play something that big in D&D. The bonuses would be so large that you would basically auto-pass any opposed check, unless you were fighting another Colossal+++etc enemy. And if you are playing against another enemy that big, you might as well just both be Medium for your game mechanics, but just say that you're both super huge.

Also, have you considered playing Mechwarrior?

Mikeavelli
2009-11-16, 10:46 AM
For what needs Mega-titanic size, Mechanus. When it forms into a plane-sized inevitable due to someone killing enough modrons.

Someone needs to write a fanfic where the Multiverse itself rejects the TTGL team for breaking the rules of the Multiverse. Indeed, for living in a Multiverse where there are no laws beyond "It works if it's totally awesome" - Mechanus itself combines its gears into a Plane-sized mecha unit, and they start fighting across the outlands.

The camera zooms out to the rest of the Great Ring, all of those Planes are sentient creatures on the same scale. They commence a Battle Royale for the Fate of All Reality.

PersonMan
2009-11-19, 05:24 PM
I don't know any DM that would let you play something that big in D&D. The bonuses would be so large that you would basically auto-pass any opposed check, unless you were fighting another Colossal+++etc enemy. And if you are playing against another enemy that big, you might as well just both be Medium for your game mechanics, but just say that you're both super huge.

Also, have you considered playing Mechwarrior?


Who said I'm not the DM? :smallwink:

Anyways, there's a good chance I'll never use it, just stat it up for fun.


Someone needs to write a fanfic where the Multiverse itself rejects the TTGL team for breaking the rules of the Multiverse. Indeed, for living in a Multiverse where there are no laws beyond "It works if it's totally awesome" - Mechanus itself combines its gears into a Plane-sized mecha unit, and they start fighting across the outlands.

The camera zooms out to the rest of the Great Ring, all of those Planes are sentient creatures on the same scale. They commence a Battle Royale for the Fate of All Reality.

...And then zooms in again as we see the denizens of each plane lining up on continent-sized towers and sending everything they have against a distant, vague shape that is another plane...

Wouldn't the Abyss win, since it's infinite?

Cieyrin
2009-11-19, 06:53 PM
Each of the planes are technically infinite, so I don't think there's much recourse for using that.

EDIT:
Also, have you considered playing Dragonmech?

Fixed that for you.:smalltongue:

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-19, 07:02 PM
As for the errors on dinosaurs, remember the MMI was written several years ago...
Or WotC could be full of idiots.

Keep in mind that this isn't an exclusive OR. WotC could be foolish, the data could be outdated, or both conditions could be true.

bosssmiley
2009-11-20, 08:54 AM
Size category: Awesome.

Actually exists. It was used in the Spelljammer: Spider Moon revival to size titanic stuff like space whales, radiant dragons, ships, etc. Basically it's the next size up from colossal (128'+).

But that's just Spelljammer; it comes with Awesome as standard. :smallcool:

Hashmir
2009-11-20, 05:26 PM
Speaking of size categories, why are 4e Tiamat and Bahamut "Huge," rather than "Gargantuan"? I mean, all the ancient dragons get the 4x4 base, but the dragon gods are only 3x3? What am I missing here?

hamishspence
2009-11-20, 05:28 PM
it is a little odd.

Possibly because the minis of the Aspect of Tiamat, and the Aspect of Bahamut, were huge- thus enabling people who have those minis, to field the full CR35/CR36 deities, with their existing minis.

Mtg_player_zach
2009-11-20, 05:33 PM
How would being larger than colossal work out with damage wise, like a monk's unarmed damage is greater the larger it is. What are the stats for unarmed damage for monks past colossal?

Hashmir
2009-11-20, 05:42 PM
it is a little odd.

Possibly because the minis of the Aspect of Tiamat, and the Aspect of Bahamut, were huge- thus enabling people who have those minis, to field the full CR35/CR36 deities, with their existing minis.

Just shift them down and over half a square. Instant 4x4 figure! :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, if I ever have one of them in a fight, I think I'll just make them one size category larger, unless that fundamentally breaks something. I know that they don't exactly need buffing, but would this change be too much?

* I do recognize that gods don't need to be big just because they're gods. It's just that these are dragon gods, and dragons are kind of known for being friggin huge. Plus, you know, they're smaller than real dragons.

Cieyrin
2009-11-20, 05:43 PM
How would being larger than colossal work out with damage wise, like a monk's unarmed damage is greater the larger it is. What are the stats for unarmed damage for monks past colossal?

Weapon damage progression continues to follow the pattern laid out in the DMG, so lots of d8s, most likely.