Are Giants Overpowered?

[Aaron2]

Like on my website here? -- www.superdan.net/dndmisc/1st_ed_giants.html

Exactly. Only in 3.5 format with LA info and a playable monster class for each giant type.

I'm willing to do the work if you'll post it.


Aaron

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've had giants terrorize players in CR-appropriate amounts, but mainly by being proper giants.

Stone giants attack from ambush, high up in hard to reach locations with few avenues of approach or escape. They focuse their attacks on mounts first, then opponents with ranged weapons/spells. Usually summoning is the best way to distract them long enough for a mass-fly to be fired off.

Fire giants and Frost Giants use the animal companions they are often found with. My fire giants use large birds (eagles or vultures) to locate prey, followed by early morning ambushes with flaming boulders targeting tents and other flammable structures, panicking/killing mounts a close second. The avians are sent to harass the party or distract them.

Frost giants use wolves to scout. Nothing like having a few winter wolves dig into the tundra the night before, get properly buried by the evening snowfall, and then pounce on the party when they walk through the middle of the pack (bless the nature channel's special on wolves). Give one Frost Giant sorceror a wand of Invisibility and unless a PC makes a heckuva Listen check (3-6 wolves trained to make as much noise as possible while fighting) or a very high Spot check (do you notice the big footsteps in the snow while a loud wolf the size of your horse is trying to eat you?) the Giants are going to live up to their CR.

But maybe it's just me.....

 

[Nail]

Wasn't there something in Savage Species about non-complementary classes affecting CR?

The MM 3.5e has such a thing:

Nonassociated Class Levels
If you add a class level that doesn’t directly play to a creature’s strength the class level is considered nonassociated, and things get a little more complicated. Adding a nonassociated class level to a monster increases its CR by 1/2 per level until one of its nonassociated class levels equals its original Hit Dice. At that point, each additional level of the same class or a similar one is considered associated and increases the monster’s CR by 1.

 

[dcollins]

The NPC CR formula of 1 level = 1 CR is broken. I'm not sure what the right CR should be for an NPC of level X, but it should be something less.

I usually call it level-1 or level-2 and be done with it.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I've been mulling it over for a while. It seems like the CR rating for opposing NPCs should be the baseline of the system, not the other way around.

But let's stipulate for a moment that that might be correct. Let me then inquire:
- Does this -1 or -2 modifier hold constant from levels 1 to 20?
- Is the modifier the same for any class (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard)?
- Doesn't that still indicate that giant CRs are too low -- taking the original example, this suggests that a Ftr12 (CR 10?) should be equivalent to a Stone Giant (CR 10 instead of listed CR 8?)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

You mean this one right?

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=83199

Pretty nonstandard party, tearing through hill giants at level 5

That was the thread I was thinking of. As the player of the druid in my mage-less party, I took note of the AOO problem when reading that thread. Maybe holding back the summoned animals until they can all go in at once (perhaps once the third animal appears, they all charge and attack for rounds 3-5).

 

[coyote6]

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I've been mulling it over for a while. It seems like the CR rating for opposing NPCs should be the baseline of the system, not the other way around.

IME, though, a level X fighter does not take up 20% of the resources of a party of level X (at least for values of X > 2 or so). And a single rogue or monk is even less of a challenge (a group of 9th level PCs whipped a 14th level monk, and that was *after* they fought a bunch of minions; they nearly whipped that same monk at 8th level); wizards & clerics are similarly not-terribly-effective, at least at levels < 10 and without ambush situations (e.g., assuming the spellcaster hasn't had an arbitrary amount of time to cast prepatory spells).

So making the CR of NPCs the baseline would require redefining CR (from "CR = level => uses 20% of resources" to some other percentage), IMO. More effective, I think, to correct the CRs of NPCs.

(Me, I use level-1 for PC classes and level-2 for NPC classes, as rough guides.)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I disagree with that. According to Skip Williams article "How to Create a Monster", a Huge Beast should have 4 to 16 Hit Dice, and Hydras are exactly within that range (5 to 12). Their Strength is in the general ballpark (more than Large, at any rate), and the bite damage of 1d10 is pretty close to suggested 2d6 (off by 1.5 average, easily balanced by how many more they have than usual).

However, this is only a small part of balancing a monster. You have to get the ACs, saving throws, attack bonuses, damage, save DCs and so forth within a relatively narrow range.

When these diverge (eg you get something with a really good damage bonus but terrible saves) then you usually end up with something really weak - or really variable (eg an ambushing giant probably doesn't need to worry about hold monster until round 2 or 3).

Meanwhile, the various Large Giants are outside the upper-bound of their suggested Hit Dice by multiples of x3 or x4.

Seems to me a huge number of monsters go outside the guidelines. I see them as minimums, and not particularly important. There are a lot of types of Large giants, and their tactics don't vary much, so varying the Hit Dice between the types of giants helps to differentiate them.

I'd like to see all the giants written at their older, 1e HD levels (for 3.5). As it is now, its difficult to create a reasonable non-fighter classed giant since by the time they get enough cleric or wizard levels to reasonably face their opponents they are vastly over CRed. Wasn't there something in Savage Species about non-complementary classes affecting CR?

There's the non-associated class levels mentioned before. I think stone giants make good eldritch knights (good Con, especially with the elite array and bear's endurance, good natural armor, and a good Strength).

 

[dcollins]

However, this is only a small part of balancing a monster...

The point I was disagreeing with was specifically about Hit Dice. Al'Kelhar said Hydras have too few Hit Dice. They do not.

Seems to me a huge number of monsters go outside the guidelines. I see them as minimums...

There are certain categories of monsters that particularly do this. I've made a comprehensive analysis in the 3.0 rules in the past on my website here: www.superdan.net/dndmisc/monster_hit_dice.html and here: www.superdan.net/dndmisc/monster_abnormal_hd.html

Giants are the #1 offender, which is why I bring them up. They're followed by certain Constructs and Outsiders. Other types are generally within the ballpark of that article.

 

[dcollins]

Do you guys remember the nice thread about overpowered druids/natures ally spell some time ago here where a monk player (level 5? Or higher?) complained that he couldn't shine because his buddy the sorcerer and the druid killed the two hill giants faster than he could with summoned monsters (dire wolf and dire lion)?

Of course, that thread featured (1) fighting the giants one at a time in sequence, (2) the druid using up all his top-level and second-top-level spells to accomplish this, and (3) a lot of questions about whether AOOs, giant Power Attack, and numbers in general were adjudicated properly.

 

[Darklone]

@Scion: Exactly this funny thread I really liked to read about a monk of that level who complained about not being able to kill the giants as fast as his buddies

@dcollins: Thanky, didn't read that stuff on your page yet. Love it.
Yeah, the PCs wasted their big spells pretty fast, but still... the giants were not taken out due to their weak saves but in melee combat.