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

[Upper_Krust]

You’re also thinking every encounter needs to be combat related.

No I don't. But if an encounter CAN potentially involve combat then better to be prepared.

We’ve known from 2014 that the challenge rating system is garbage in 5e.

Remove the secondary modifiers and its pretty much fixed (IMHO).

That it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to accurately. Is it a good gauge? Sure if you want to hamstring yourself. Everyone takes these extreme examples when I’m not using these extreme example. I wouldn’t throw a tarrasque at any party because it’s not a combat monster. It’s a plot point. If you think every encounter is supposed to be about combat then that’s how you play. Good for you. I use CR as a gauge but in general it is a failed system. If it’s fun, do it. If it’s not? Don’t.

If its not a combat encounter, why does it have combat statistics?

But we can’t sit here and actually say the challenge rating system works. It’s shown how it doesn’t work in this very thread because monsters in the monster manual don’t follow the same guidelines as the DMG for challenge ratings by a long shot and are a LOT weaker than the DMG guidelines indicate. So yes. It’s garbage. A DM who knows his party doesn’t need challenge rating.

Even a DM who knows his party will still look at the challenge rating and combat statistics of monsters to have a rough idea if they would make a good encounter or not. They might not be interested in the minutiae of XP thresholds and stuff like that but you still won't use monsters that are just going to TPK the party.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think the main issue is that giants have never been depicted in art as Large.

They're never shown as horse-sized or even ogre sized. They're towering over houses, picking up trees to use a clubs, and generally being... giant.

Honestly Huge even feels like a stretch. They seem bigger than mammoths or triceratopses in most art.

Maybe we just got honest about scale!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Probably my fault going off topic.



Well I have changed my mind on the topic of whether they should be Huge or not. I agree now it was a good idea.



I don't recall saying anything along those lines. Can you find a quote?

I did say if you make the giants bigger then you should try and make them more (rather than less) interesting because bigger/more powerful creatures get used less often.



I don't recall saying they were too dangerous to fight. But I did point out that 5E fire giants were tougher than most other monsters (for their CR) and that taking on more than 5 was likely a TPK for a party of four 12th-level PCs...and in Against the Giants the Fire Giant Stronghold has 105 giants, while the likelihood of encountering 5+ at a time is very high you would think.



I think WotC lazily (as the maps attest to) converted over Against the Giants to 5E without thinking through the potential threat of 105 fire giants in a system with bounded accuracy. But I don't have the adventure so I am only going off the information other people post in this thread.



This thread convinced me, early into it, that giants should be Huge and I'm happy with that change WotC made. I still think 4E Giants are more interesting, but that's another matter entirely.



Agreed.



That's a fair point.



I no longer think they should be large.

However, my initial reasoning as to why I didn't like the change from 4E to 5E giants was because they took away the (large) giant & (huge) titan dynamic (ie. Hill Giants & Earth Titans). 5E removed the titans and in so doing made the giants FAR less interesting. Of course the easy fix is to simply make the Titans Gargantuan in 5E - but that doesn't change the fact nothing like that exists in the 5E Monster Manual.

Additionally 4E usually had 2-3 giant types of the same giant that filled different roles (e.g. Fire Giant Icefist, etc.). They could easily get around this in 5E by having an extra mini-stat-block just for the attacks.

Apologies, I missed where you changed your mind. I largely agree with your reasoning on Against the Giants and Titans.

 

[teitan]

Because you're wrong. And when people talk naughty word, I feel compelled to correct them.

Literally every single adventure ever written in every edition ever contains predominantly encounters balanced around the expected level of the PCs it's designed for.

That doesn't mean your PCs have to fight them. It's just how it is, despite your constant assertions that its not.

Wow. Just wow. You’re actually quite wrong. Tomb of Horrors much? Lol you must be new to this game or have never seen a random encounter table. Ever.

 

[teitan]

If its not a combat encounter, why does it have combat statistics?

Why did gods have statistics in the original Deities & Demigods/Gods, Demigods & Heroes? It’s a game. People want to know what it takes to kill it but a tarrasque adventure? Realistically, it should be a plot point like Godzilla. Sure it has statistics but here we are getting into approaches to encounters.

removing secondary modifiers fixes CR? Maybe but that’s not rules as written. RAW it’s janky and broken and doesn’t work. That’s not even getting into XP budgets. Players may use CR to gauge a fight but honestly that’s 1: meta gaming and 2: weak dming. It’s gotta be changed up. If you’re constantly throwing things at them in their weight class and they know it, it removes the challenge. If they know they can overcome every encounter because of “challenge ratings” and math equations it kills the challenge and ruins the element of surprise. I’ve been running 5e for a year and a half and what I’ve noticed with the CR system is that creatures of the same challenge rating are swingy. There isn’t really a middle ground. I had the same problem with it in 3.x, it didn’t work to accurately gauge the threat to the party. I follow the old school guidelines when I look at CR but mostly I know my party and what they can do and use that to challenge them rather than trying to plug in some numbers that don’t work. The problem with CR in my opinion is that the math, in a computer game, could work but humans aren’t computers. So sure, a guideline but it’s not a good one.

but then you aren’t claiming every adventure ever written for the game was balanced and that CR has always been some be all, end all perfectly well oiled machine.

 

[dave2008]

You have to look at these things logically.

I agree, I just don't think we agree on the logic.

 

[dave2008]

Mostly over-inflated (due to secondary abilities) and not reflective of actual Hard and Deadly challenges.

If the official DMG pg. 274 Monster Statistic By Challenge Ratings (with secondary modifiers) rules contradict the official DMG pg. 82 XP Thresholds by Character Level* then no matter which side of the fence you fall on, things won't add up.

*Notably as regards what constitutes a Deadly Encounter.

My personal opinion is that ignoring the secondary modifiers and just using the Pg. 274 table better represents the Hard and Deadly columns on Page 82.

I disagree and at this point we should agree to disagree. I've made my case, you have made yours. You don't find my case compelling and I don't find yours convincing either. I disagree with your logic, you disagree with mine. No more to be said at this point.

I still look forward to whatever your working on and wish you good luck!

 

[dave2008]

S'mon is a good friend, I'll just leave it at that.

I know, I just meant in terms of epic monster design. I thought you might find this interesting:

 

[Upper_Krust]

Apologies, I missed where you changed your mind. I largely agree with your reasoning on Against the Giants and Titans.

No apologies necessary Urriak.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Why did gods have statistics in the original Deities & Demigods/Gods, Demigods & Heroes?

To allow for the possibility of combat...fought a few gods back in the day.

It’s a game. People want to know what it takes to kill it but a tarrasque adventure? Realistically, it should be a plot point like Godzilla. Sure it has statistics but here we are getting into approaches to encounters.

I fail to see why such creatures cannot be plot points and combat encounters? Added to which the power of any monster, even the Tarrasque is relative. With 3rd Edition's Epic level Handbook it was possible an individual PC could end up more powerful than a Tarrasque.

removing secondary modifiers fixes CR? Maybe but that’s not rules as written. RAW it’s janky and broken and doesn’t work. That’s not even getting into XP budgets. Players may use CR to gauge a fight but honestly that’s 1: meta gaming and 2: weak dming. It’s gotta be changed up.

Surely its more likely DMs will be using it as a gauge. If your players are metagaming (albeit whats wrong with that if they are having fun) then the DM can always mix things up and change stats about.

If you’re constantly throwing things at them in their weight class and they know it, it removes the challenge. If they know they can overcome every encounter because of “challenge ratings” and math equations it kills the challenge and ruins the element of surprise.

You are talking about formulaic Encounter Design. That's a separate issue from Challenge Rating.

I’ve been running 5e for a year and a half and what I’ve noticed with the CR system is that creatures of the same challenge rating are swingy. There isn’t really a middle ground.

Someone early in this thread highlighted the difference they found between CR 8 Githyanki Knights and CR 9 Fire Giants. When I examined the difference the Githyanki's CR (going by the table) was vastly over inflated.

I had the same problem with it in 3.x, it didn’t work to accurately gauge the threat to the party. I follow the old school guidelines when I look at CR but mostly I know my party and what they can do and use that to challenge them rather than trying to plug in some numbers that don’t work. The problem with CR in my opinion is that the math, in a computer game, could work but humans aren’t computers. So sure, a guideline but it’s not a good one.

Look at CR as a 'best estimate'.

No matter how good a CR system, it can't account for a monster rolling well, players using clever tactics and the like.

but then you aren’t claiming every adventure ever written for the game was balanced and that CR has always been some be all, end all perfectly well oiled machine.

Exactly, its not. But its still handy to have.