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

[Flamestrike]

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 ).

No, it's not basically the same thing. Encounter XP budgets are not the same thing as CR ratings for individual monsters. There is nothing in the rules to suggest this is the case either.

CR is just a rough approximation of the general challenge level of an individual monster compared to a PC of X level. Roughly gauged by damage output. You can't assign a multi monster encounter a 'CR' for the encounter because that's not how it works or an accurate representation of the challenge (that's to be found in the XP budget)

 

[dave2008]

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.

UK, the issue @Flamestrike is discussing is that CR only refers to individual monsters and becomes very misleading if you try to apply it to an encounter. Just because an encounter and a monster have the same XP reward does not mean they are really equal. The encounter budget has a range (low to deadly) and takes into account number of PCs and monsters. CR has not of this. CR just tells you if a monster is OK for a party of giving level.

You might think 30,000xp = 30,000xp, but in encounter design vs CR it really doesn't.

 

[Flamestrike]

UK, the issue @Flamestrike is discussing is that CR only refers to individual monsters and becomes very misleading if you try to apply it to an encounter. Just because an encounter and a monster have the same XP reward does not mean they are really equal. The encounter budget has a range (low to deadly) and takes into account number of PCs and monsters. CR has not of this. CR just tells you if a monster is OK for a party of giving level.

You might think 30,000xp = 30,000xp, but in encounter design vs CR it really doesn't.

The other common mistake is assuming the inverse to be true (a CR X monster is a sufficient challenge for a party of 5 Level X PCs).

A single CR 10 monster against 5 x 10th level PCs isn't even a 'medium' encounter for that party. It's 'easy' - or in other words:

Easy. An easy encounter doesn’t tax the characters’ resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed.

Building Combat Encounters

That 10th level party needs a solo CR 14-15 to be a 'Hard' encounter, and they would need roughly 4 such encounters in a single Adventuring day to hit the Adventuring day XP budget of 4,500 for 5 x 10th level PCs.

 

[teitan]

I’ve always found Challenge rating to be garbage. Gaaarbaaaahj. One it implies every encounter needs to be balanced to be overcome which gets us into “monsters are there to kill” territory. Two it ruins verisimilitude because players can easily judge how an encounter may go for them knowing a CR 9 creature is supposed to be an average encounter if they are level 9. Three balance was about not letting one person steal the spotlight prior to 3e. It turns D&D into gamist rather than a living world. Not every encounter needs to be a battle. Not every Ettin is evil (this coming from a guy with no problem with evil races as a default because I understand Rule 0).

 

[cbwjm]

Huge is the new giant.

 

[Coroc]

Thanks for the post Voadam.

5E Giants seem on par with that illustration from Basic D&D.
1E scaled them down.
2E scaled them back up.
3E scaled them down again.
4E kept them scaled down...but added the titans.
5E scaled them back up but removed the titans.

I agree Huge giants are more 'giant-like' (in traditional fantasy terms). That said, smaller giants are more accessible and usable in larger numbers. Facilitating adventures akin to the classic 'Against the Giants' series.

To me, 4E giants are the best of both worlds (Large Giants, Huge Titans) while also making individual giant types more varied than ever before and playing up the elemental side of things.

No Titans in 5e?

 

[S'mon]

No Titans in 5e?

Nope. Kobold Press has the CR 22 Jotun (Gargantuan), basically a Norse giant, the kind that appears in the myths.

Running 5e with mostly 3e-4e era minis, I normally keep my giants Large and use the small number of 5e-sized minis as oversized giants, titans and such.

 

[Ash Mantle]

No Titans in 5e?

Nope. Kobold Press has the CR 22 Jotun (Gargantuan), basically a Norse giant, the kind that appears in the myths.

Running 5e with mostly 3e-4e era minis, I normally keep my giants Large and use the small number of 5e-sized minis as oversized giants, titans and such.

Titans do kinda, sorta exist in 5e, kinda, sorta.
Empyreans are called out to be 'Immortal Titans' in their MM entry (page 130), and have the titan special subtype. But otherwise, they're "the celestial children of the gods of the Upper Planes" and are Huge celestials. Greek myth style titans they're kinda not but also kinda am, but as higher order beings descending into the mortal realms they could potentially serve as precursors of the giant races.

 

[teitan]

Thanks for the post Voadam.

5E Giants seem on par with that illustration from Basic D&D.
1E scaled them down.
2E scaled them back up.
3E scaled them down again.
4E kept them scaled down...but added the titans.
5E scaled them back up but removed the titans.

Well Against The Giants was written for in 1978 originally so I don't think they were scaled up. I think the sizes were the same. Let's compare OD+D and Basic.

That's OD&D

This is part of the Giant Description in Expert Set, original.

So only Fire Giants got bigger but Storm, Cloud & Frost Giants are in the HUGE range according to Table of Creature Size and Scale

So Yeah a couple giants were upsized in BD&D. AD&D still used the OD&D sizes.

 

[Flamestrike]

I’ve always found Challenge rating to be garbage. Gaaarbaaaahj. One it implies every encounter needs to be balanced to be overcome which gets us into “monsters are there to kill” territory.

Which is the game. Enter dungeon. Kill monsters.

Has been since 1E.

I mean, if you wanna throw Balors at your party at 1st level, Im glad Im not playing in your campaigns.

Two it ruins verisimilitude because players can easily judge how an encounter may go for them knowing a CR 9 creature is supposed to be an average encounter if they are level 9.

It's not meant to be an average encounter. See my post above.

Not every encounter needs to be a battle.

No, but most of them are, and when they are, having a rough guide to easily see what they can handle, helps.