The Bigger They Come . . .

d2OKC · Sep 25, 2012

I kind of took that as an extension of their character. Like, they base their structure on who can eat the most, so naturally, some of them will gorge themselves, just to try to "win" against other hill giants. Imagine a little kid at dinner who stuffs his mouth so full he can barely breath just to impress his parents. These giants can eat a pig in one bite, and it's a perfect symbol of both their stupidity and their gluttony. Hill giants are dumb. That's kind of their thing.

It could also have been, as you suggested, hyperbole. *shrug*

frankthedm · Sep 25, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
It helps distinguish them from Ogres and other Large beasts. And it makes fighting them MOAR EPIC.

Agreed!

TerraDave · Sep 25, 2012

Hill giant at the dinner table:

A smaller pig in one bite...but at least 3 for the cow.

d2OKC · Sep 25, 2012

Had to attach the image, but it seems to be pretty good proof. I think this giant could get the pig in his mouth, if he were really motivated.

KidSnide · Sep 25, 2012

d2OKC said:
Had to attach the image, but it seems to be pretty good proof. I think this giant could get the pig in his mouth, if he were really motivated.

Really?

Anyway, I hate to resort to math on this, but if a hill giant is twice the height of a human with 8-10 times a human's mass, then it's hard to see a hill giant eating more than 20-30 pounds of food in a sitting. Yes, that's a whole suckling pig eaten by a single giant, but it's a long way away from eating a cow in three bites.

-KS

Libramarian · Sep 25, 2012

frankthedm said:
Maybe it was exaggeration or maybe the author has never been to a farm, but anyone else how BIG hill giants are being described as?

"A hill giant can eat a pig in one bite or a cow in two"

No way that isn't huge size class unless they have mouths like a Tsuburu No Oni.

And that is the weakest of the giants. So it sound like giants are going to be notably bigger than 3E.

Oh dude, they're even bigger than that. A cow is like 5ft tall at the shoulders. Think about how big the Giant's mouth would have to open to cram half a cow into it: 3 feet at least. If the mouth is 3ft the head is like 10ft high. A 10ft tall head at human proportions means the Hill Giant is easily Colossal size (64ft+).

It's totally ridiculous.

I suspect there is a connection between running combat in an abstract board-game style and a desire for bigger and bigger monsters. When you're actually imagining what's occurring in your mind's eye, 12-18ft tall Giants are plenty epic enough.

Ultimatecalibur · Sep 25, 2012

Libramarian said:
Oh dude, they're even bigger than that. A cow is like 5ft tall at the shoulders. Think about how big the Giant's mouth would have to open to cram half a cow into it: 3 feet at least. If the mouth is 3ft the head is like 10ft high. A 10ft tall head at human proportions means the Hill Giant is easily Colossal size (64ft+).

You do know that modern agricultural science has let cattle to be breed larger than even before. Historical records show that cows tended to be between 42"(3' 6") and 48"(4') with some breeds getting up to 55"(4' 7"). Bulls tend to be 4" to 6" taller than cows, but still they were not as big as you suspect.

howandwhy99 · Sep 26, 2012

This article in the series was the best one yet. Very good across the board. I have some notes, just niggling details really, but I thought these guys came across as the best interpretation so far.

[sblock]

Common Ancestry, religion, culture, language, history.
A prideful, ancient race
Dragons vs Giants war pre-humanity as a possibility.

All of these are solid, though the culture's differ widely, almost as much as humans do. And they are in different rates of accomplishment. Certainly different between a storm giant and a hill giant.

Here's a breakdown on each description:

Storm Giants - looks good
Cloud Giants - Not sure, looks good. No homeplace mentioned.
Fire Giants - Pretty good
Frost Giants - Not necessarily bad, coulThd use Neutrals and more Norse lore
Stone Giants - Pretty cool
Hill Giants - Magic hating isn't necessarily magical resistance, but okay otherwise.
Titans - I really like this. Not the reasons for the approach, but the individuality and requirement that each is such a force that they are uniques.

The real issue is there is no hierarchy or caste system for giants. They are more akin to bears - black, brown, kodiak, and polars. Some are bigger, some smaller, but all are bears.

All giants tend to seclusion and therefore are found far from large populations of more prolific races. Even hill giants are a good bit away, if only because other races avoid them.

Giants tend to be longer lived the larger they are.

As a single species they have a broad fecundity (sort of like dogs), which is usually intentionally limited. How giantkin like ogres and trolls came about might have to do with foolhardy hill giants.

Ecology and climate affect the local populations of giants more than the human norm. SO we get frosty the giant, but quite not frosty the human.

Stone Giants technically are mountain giants, at least in terms of the Norse Mythos of Deities & Demigods. The Bergrisi of the Jotun are also known as rock giants and why I believe they were included in the early Monster Manual.

A lot of cultures have giants as part of their histories and myths. I think we include many more, if we expanded D&D as partly a mythology-based game.[/sblock]

Chris_Nightwing · Sep 26, 2012

I can't believe you're arguing about the size of a cow

Tovec · Sep 26, 2012

Here's my problem, I read the article yesterday and I've now slept on it and I can't tell you which giant is at the top and which is #2 . Outside of stone giants throw rocks and hill giants are big and dumb (and frost = cold and fire = fire) I know and remember very little about the article or indeed their new scope for the giants.

This problem isn't just with the new interpretation though, I've been playing for YEARS and I still don't know the difference between cloud and storm, or why I would use one more than another.

Are giants supposed to be elementally? If so shouldn't they all resemble their elements MORE closely?

Let me relate this to dragons, it is like they have the red dragon, the green dragon, the gold dragon, the purple dragon, a couple of 4e's drakes and a wyvern and they're giving me hierarchy information on them. It seems like they are missing the mark, at least in my opinion.

I wouldn't use any of these giants as the "fee-fi-fo-fum" type giants because they aren't big enough. 22 feet being the TALLEST. Where do I find ones that have hands as big as a person? Huge is the common size we're getting now, same as before IIRC but that is too homogeneous.

Yes I could have vikings killing frost giants again, if I had vikings or enough frost giants, but they really miss the point. Ever wonder if the viking tales talked of frost giants because they lived in a colder environment than other tales? Does cold environment now equate to cold immunity? Where did the summoning blizzards and avalanches come from. I like it but I don't get it. Are they supposed to be creatures of the elements or creatures who USE the elements to their favour? It seems like no matter their choice they're currently stuck in an odd middle ground.

My preference BTW would be to keep the elemental flavour but not have them be creatures of those elements. Just like I would make dragons who can spit fire but not necessarily dragons COMPOSED of fire.

EDIT: At least we with dragons we know there are the scholar dragons, the brooding dragons, the greedy dragons, the maniacally evil ones. With giants we have the warrior ones, the aloof warrior ones, the get off my grass warrior ones and the hungry ones.