D&D 5E Why are 5E Giants Huge size?

[Urriak Uruk]

My point is that if you have to face 5 fire giants or more at Level 12 then its a TPK. In a fortress of 105 fire giants

You're not supposed to fight them all at the same time. If you do, you die. It's not an easy module, and to challenge level 12 players there needs to be a lot of giants. In each encounter however, there are rarely any times with 5 giants, and when there are they are not as strong as normal Fire Giants (they have slightly lower stats and are called Fire Giant Servants).

I partially agree with you on this but I think you have it slightly back to front (at least based on my observations).

The CR system begins to break down at higher levels primarily because the monsters (especially those from the Monster Manual) do not match the statistics for monsters of their supposed Challenge Rating (as per Page 274 in the DMG).

Now yes more options, items and spells CAN result in overpowered Party's but if you don't get the monster basics right you just compound any potential problems.



Githyanki Knight ( CR 8 ): 91 hp and two attacks averaging 46 damage.

CR 8 (by the DMG): 176-190 hp and averaging 51-56 damage.

Fire Giant ( CR 9 ): 162 hp and two attacks averaging 56 damage.

CR 9 (by the DMG): 191-205 hp and averaging 57-62 damage.

So the Githyanki Knight has 49% of the suggested HP for CR 8 and 86% of the damage. Githyanki Knight at 67% overall effectiveness.
A Fire Giant has 88% of the suggested HP and deals 94% of the suggested damage. Fire Giant at 91% overall effectiveness.

Both have fractionally higher than average AC's so we can cut them a tiny bit of slack. But we can easily see which one is more formidable on a per CR basis.

The CR system isn't breaking down because of what the DMG says; there is a mismatch there because for some reason the DMG assumes when you make your own monsters, you give them loads of HP and they don't hit as hard (which is reversed for many MM monsters, which do a lot of damage but don't have much HP). This isn't tied to why the Easy/Medium/Hard/Deadly classifications just break down in higher levels of 5e. Regardless of the balance of HP/damage, at high levels PCs mop up Hard encounters easily and are only challenged by truly deadly challenges. I know this, because I've run high-level encounters; the designers of 5E clearly didn't test enough high-level games, or maybe there's been enough powercreep by now that the core rulebooks don't estimate it well.

 

[Parmandur]

You're not supposed to fight them all at the same time. If you do, you die. It's not an easy module, and to challenge level 12 players there needs to be a lot of giants. In each encounter however, there are rarely any times with 5 giants, and when there are they are not as strong as normal Fire Giants (they have slightly lower stats and are called Fire Giant Servants).



The CR system isn't breaking down because of what the DMG says; there is a mismatch there because for some reason the DMG assumes when you make your own monsters, you give them loads of HP and they don't hit as hard (which is reversed for many MM monsters, which do a lot of damage but don't have much HP). This isn't tied to why the Easy/Medium/Hard/Deadly classifications just break down in higher levels of 5e. Regardless of the balance of HP/damage, at high levels PCs mop up Hard encounters easily and are only challenged by truly deadly challenges. I know this, because I've run high-level encounters; the designers of 5E clearly didn't test enough high-level games, or maybe there's been enough powercreep by now that the core rulebooks don't estimate it well.

They had problems since the publication of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, actually. Estimating difficulty is pretty complex, and 5E learned from 3.x and 4E to not assume it can be nailed down too tightly to begin with: it's basically tuned to account for completely unoptimized and unprepared players.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

They had problems since the publication of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, actually. Estimating difficulty is pretty complex, and 5E learned from 3.x and 4E to not assume it can be nailed down too tightly to begin with: it's basically tuned to account for completely unoptimized and unprepared players.

Completely true. A balanced, well-optimized, tactically minded group, loaded up on magic items and great armor... that's really hard to challenge. Like REALLY hard. I had a player who was an artificer, and had his little homunculus guy constantly spamming web to gum up encounters, for example. You've got to start throwing really tough enemies, like a Death Knight, to knock them on their heels.

I'll add, parties who get to higher levels tend to be more tactical, as they have become more accustomed to the playstyle and are more aware of what abilities they have and what are most effective.

 

[Parmandur]

Completely true. A balanced, well-optimized, tactically minded group, loaded up on magic items and great armor... that's really hard to challenge. Like REALLY hard. I had a player who was an artificer, and had his little homunculus guy constantly spamming web to gum up encounters, for example. You've got to start throwing really tough enemies, like a Death Knight, to knock them on their heels.

I'll add, parties who get to higher levels tend to be more tactical, as they have become more accustomed to the playstyle and are more aware of what abilities they have and what are most effective.

And frankly, that's part of the fun.

 

[Upper_Krust]

That's not in the rules anywhere.

Or if it is, please point out where.

CR only equates to the relative challenge of a monster, not to an encounter.

Hey there Flamestrike,

I don't understand your confusion here. If a monster is worth 33,000 XP then its classified as a Challenge Rating 21 monster.

Three Fire Giants are 15,000 XP multiplied by 2 because there is 3-6 of them. That's 30,000 XP.

That's basically the same as a CR 21 monster ( 30,000 is closer to CR 21 than CR 20 ).

3 just scrapes in to Deadly, yeah (due to the XP multiplier of x2 which they only just hit).

It could very well be a TPK. Even a well rested party with unlucky initiative rolls, could face 6 x attacks doing 6d6+10 damage attacks, with a natural 20 leading to a 12d6 critical hit. If they gang up on a single PC, he likely dies, and they could feasibly kill 2 in a single round.

Depleted of resources, they could be in some real strife.

I agree. Its an interesting dynamic change from previous editions.

...I wonder would 7 Fire Giants* (with +1 magic weapons) defeat Orcus? Eyeballing it...looks like they almost certainly would, albeit Orcus has the stats of a CR 20-21 monster (for some reason).

*Basically the same as CR 26.

 

[Parmandur]

Hey there Flamestrike,

I don't understand your confusion here. If a monster is worth 33,000 XP then its classified as a Challenge Rating 21 monster.

Three Fire Giants are 15,000 XP multiplied by 2 because there is 3-6 of them. That's 30,000 XP.

That's basically the same as a CR 21 monster ( 30,000 is closer to CR 21 than CR 20 ).



I agree. Its an interesting dynamic change from previous editions.

...I wonder would 7 Fire Giants* (with +1 magic weapons) defeat Orcus? Eyeballing it...looks like they almost certainly would, albeit Orcus has the stats of a CR 20-21 monster (for some reason).

*Basically the same as CR 26.

In 5E, the math is fuzzier than that.

 

[S'mon]

Roughly speaking (but from experience) I'd say 3 fire giants probably are indeed about equal to or even slightly better than 1 CR 20 monster in typical threat level. 3 fire giants vs 1 ancient brass or white dragon, or a pit fiend.

 

[jasper]

Giants were Large in 1E and Huge in 2E. So there is precedent for both.

That said, 5E's Huge Giants create interesting problems in Tales from the Yawning Portal. The maps for Against the Giants were designed with 1E's Large Giants in mind, which means that 5E's Huge Giants can't fit down their own hallways in some cases!

THiS is why Editors are sometimes Stoned. I changed the scale to one square equal 20 foot and still there were rooms I had trouble fitting minis into.

 

[jasper]

I agree, but I don't see why they need to be. However, 5E compounds the blandness because the higher the CR (and as a byproduct of that the monsters size) the fewer of a given monster most campaigns will both see and use.

I actually should have asked Prakriti if in Tales of the Yawning Portal you are meant to face more than 1 or 2 giants at a time in any given encounter?



....

• Chief Nosnra fights as a frost giant with no immunities. He has AC 17 from splint armor. The chief is seated at the head table.
• Nosnra’s wife, Grutha, is a hill giant. She sits beside the chief.
• The chief’s cave bear (use the cave bear variant with the polar bear statistics) is licking up spills under the head table at Nosnra’s feet.
• The subchief, also seated at the head table, is a hill giant that fights as a stone giant, without Stone Camouflage. His AC is from splint armor.
• A cloud giant ambassador stands near the firepit.
• A stone giant visitor is seated at the head table.
• Seven hill giants, including the sergeant from area 25 (who has AC 16 from chain mail and 115 hit points), six hill giant servants (use the ogre statistics), and eight ogres are scattered around the room.
• This is the party room.

 

[Rabulias]

I thought this sounded familiar. For those looking for further info/perspectives/thoughts there was a similar thread back in January: D&D General - Miniatures shouldn't be edition-dependent (a Fire Giant size rant)