Firbolgs - A PC Race From VOLO'S GUIDE TO MONSTERS

Interesting. A bit of a departure from depictions in earlier editions. Much more nature oriented...seems they're playing up the fey aspect based on the Celtic origins of the race.

 

[Marandahir]

I love this take on the Firbolg.
Honestly does everything for me that I've wanted to try to work around my Goliath character. He's going to get a retweak!!!

 

[Valetudo]

Is it just me that thinks its weird that the wisdom gets a plus two and not strength?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not the one who needs to read my own posts. I have a rather elaborate explanation of the need of flaws. Have been an advocate of flaws forever. Giant weapons as a racial trait should be accompanied by flaws, but because of the fear of flaws, WOTC 5e doesn't have them. To which I object.

Simple.

The only flaw that really offsets being able to use Large weapons is a flaw that says "you can't actually use Large weapons."

That's why that's the firbolg we got: it can't use Large weapons.

Any other flaw - such as the 2e-style prohibition on armor - results in min/max situations ("I'm a firbolg barbarian, I don't wear armor!") or binary play ("glass tigers" that deal a lot of damage but die with a stiff breeze) or marshmallowing (like XP penalties or level offsets making you wait until higher levels to be more powerful than anyone else) or fiction prices for mechanical benefits (oh, I'm more powerful than anyone else in a fight, but I'm prohibited from entering any community of more than 50 individuals, good thing we're playing this dungeon crawl campaign, huh?) or other rather unfortunate effects.

Flaws in general also add a significant layer of complexity to character generation and gameplay.

If you want that balance, go ahead and add it. If you think it works, I'd love to hear it! But, I wouldn't hold out for WotC to give it to you - racial flaws in general aren't a thing for some pretty good reasons, and it would probably require a pretty good reason to go back on that.

 

[Selvarin]

Flaws should be reasonable/logical, not punitive. I've seen in previous editions a +2 to abilities needed to be 'balanced' with -4 worth of penalties. Not +2/-2 but +2/-4. Can't find something justifiable? Ram it in. Because the game designers dictated it. They fought so hard for zero-sum game that they made the idea of playing some races distastefully impossible.

Reality is...life ain't fair. Some choices just have more advantages..and some milder but logical downsides.

Taller than tall? Well you have more reach, you may even be stronger. But you're probably not built-for/agile enough to bounce from rooftop to rooftop. So there may be a Dex hit. And on and on it goes...

 

[Remathilis]

I am not the one who needs to read my own posts. I have a rather elaborate explanation of the need of flaws. Have been an advocate of flaws forever. Giant weapons as a racial trait should be accompanied by flaws, but because of the fear of flaws, WOTC 5e doesn't have them. To which I object.

Simple.

OK.

Bonus: can use giant sized weapons.
Penalty: vulnerable to piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.

Deal twice as much, take twice as much.

 

[gantzerteo]

Someone here miss so much Monkey Grip right?

 

[I'm A Banana]

OK.

Bonus: can use giant sized weapons.
Penalty: vulnerable to piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.

Deal twice as much, take twice as much.

If that works for you, great.

For me, I don't think it would work. I know if I saw that, I'd be seeing firbolg barbrians (resistance!) and firbolg fighters (high AC, so you can't hurt what you can't touch) aplenty. Even if the player didn't find a way around the weakness, we'd have firbolgs that are one or two-hit kills for most monsters which means a player spending more time rolling death saves than declaring actions.

It falls into the min/max and paper tiger buckets.

 

[Remathilis]

If that works for you, great.

For me, I don't think it would work. I know if I saw that, I'd be seeing firbolg barbrians (resistance!) and firbolg fighters (high AC, so you can't hurt what you can't touch) aplenty. Even if the player didn't find a way around the weakness, we'd have firbolgs that are one or two-hit kills for most monsters which means a player spending more time rolling death saves than declaring actions.

It falls into the min/max and paper tiger buckets.

It actually doesn't. I'm trying to show that flaws only create wonky, swingy systems ripe for abuse.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It actually doesn't. I'm trying to show that flaws only create wonky, swingy systems ripe for abuse.

Ah! Too subtle for me! Good illustration!

 

[Jester David]

Giant sized weapons could still work. It just shouldn't be the same as monster's giant weapons, where a second dice is added, since monsters and PC races no longer need to have symmetry,

It could be something like "when you use a larger sized weapon the dice increases by one size" or "when you use a large sized weapon you deal an additional +1 (or +2) damage".
Or limit it to Simple melee weapons and then double the die (or rather, you can wield Large Simple weapons as Martial weapons). The greatclub is still baller, doing 2d8, but with an average damage of 9, it's not that much higher than a greatsword's 7. Well within the power scope of a racial power.

This could even be a feat. Firbolg Weaponry.