Fire Giant Dreadnoughts in VOLO's GUIDE TO MONSTERS

WotC posted this image a couple of days ago, along with a brief note that that Volo's Guide to Monsters has "quite an extensive entry" on Fire Giant Dreadnoughts. Spiky! Also check out yesterday's Giant Lore preview, and the preface - there's a bit of a giant-based focus o the previews, which is likely because Storm King's Thunder is the current storyline. The book hits stores on November 15th (November 4th in preferred stores).

SaveSave​

 

[Demetrios1453]

Why are we talking about how realistic giants are.

That's what I'm wondering. If you can suspend disbelief enough to believe giants can exist, then having one that can lug around a couple of shields isn't an insurmountable step beyond that...

 

[dave2008]

If elephants looked and moved like deer then they would be giant deer instead of elephants.

The point is, in the real world you can't have giant deer (or at least deer the size of elephants) because their gracile legs would break under the stress and strain of their athletic movements. If a deer to evolve to the size of an elephant it would end up looking a lot like an elephant. A giraffe is probable about as big as you can get with a deer like shape and they are 1/3 the weight of an elephant.

 

[Dualazi]

in the real world

Found your problem. Real world physics need not apply in D&D discussions, unless you're also going to apply it to every other source of contention like how dragons can fly, the ramifications of any number of spells, and the alleged physical properties of fantasy metals and substances. Seriously, realism isn't an argument when you realize it would have to be applied setting-wide and thus the game would crumple because, of course, it's fantasy.

 

[Celebrim]

AN 18' tall giant would weigh 27X that of a 6' human, yet only be 9x as strong. That is not believable to me (in real world physics and strength of materials).

It's not freakin' believable to me either... because heck, a gorilla is about 9x as strong as a human. We can presume anything scaled up involves a scaled up version of the heavier simian frame used by a gorillas or chimpanzees. This results in an 18' tall creature with say 30-40x the weight of a person, but say 60-80x as strong. That's a much lower strength to weight ratio that a gorilla or a chimpanzee, but still higher than the vast majority of humans, because well humans are a terrible basis for theoretical strength of animals as we are almost at the bottom end of the scale when it comes to strength to weight ratios.

The problem I frequently have discussing 'realism', is that exactly what is realistic is not easy to determine, but some people are absolutely sure otherwise. If it is close, I'm quite happy to give the benefit of the doubt. If it is illustrating some common trope of fantasy, I'm quite happy to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Besides which, since an 18' foot tall giant is on the edge of realism as it is, once we factor in - as I said in the quoted section that they aren't necessarily made of real world materials - I don't have a huge problem with an 18' foot tall giant. As I said, my huge problem here is not only is the giant carrying an unrealistic amount of weight, it is an unrealistic amount of weight that is unrealistic even under the rules of the game. This is a situation where it's not a close run thing, isn't illustrating a common trope of fantasy, and appears to have had very little thought given to it. The picture isn't marginally unrealistic and it's not a normal conceit of fantasy; it's just absurd.

 

[Cleon]

The point is, in the real world you can't have giant deer (or at least deer the size of elephants) because their gracile legs would break under the stress and strain of their athletic movements. If a deer to evolve to the size of an elephant it would end up looking a lot like an elephant. A giraffe is probable about as big as you can get with a deer like shape and they are 1/3 the weight of an elephant.

Yes, I'm aware of the biomechanical limitations of real world animals.

However, in D&D world there are lots of creatures that look like massively scaled-up versions of normal sized creatures, such as giants vs. humanoids.

Since many of them are three times taller without having legs five times thicker like the square-cube rule dictates, clearly their leg bones, muscles and tendons must be proportionally stronger per unit cross-section to allow them to move about normally.

I think the easiest solution is to assume there's some aspect of "magical" biology that allows a creature's strength or toughness to be proportional to its volume.

It explains Godzilla, and who would want a universe without Godzilla.*

. . .

*Apart from a lot of Japanese, of course.

 

[Cleon]

Also the reason for the Fire Giants fairly small legs is because they are built like Dwarves.

Just for clarification, it's not the length of the legs that bothers me but the thickness.

They just look too... spindly.

They'd look much better if they were more proportional to the 5E Monster Manual Fire Giant's arms, which are ridiculously thick.

Look at its hands - they're way bigger than his feet!

Compare them to, say, a Gorilla. It just looks wrong to me:

 

[dave2008]

Found your problem. Real world physics need not apply in D&D discussions, unless you're also going to apply it to every other source of contention like how dragons can fly, the ramifications of any number of spells, and the alleged physical properties of fantasy metals and substances. Seriously, realism isn't an argument when you realize it would have to be applied setting-wide and thus the game would crumple because, of course, it's fantasy.

I agree completely - that was my point. Why be offended by the lack "real world" design in the fire giant when that doesn't apply to D&D

 

[dave2008]

Yes, I'm aware of the biomechanical limitations of real world animals.

However, in D&D world there are lots of creatures that look like massively scaled-up versions of normal sized creatures, such as giants vs. humanoids.

Since many of them are three times taller without having legs five times thicker like the square-cube rule dictates, clearly their leg bones, muscles and tendons must be proportionally stronger per unit cross-section to allow them to move about normally.

I think the easiest solution is to assume there's some aspect of "magical" biology that allows a creature's strength or toughness to be proportional to its volume.

It explains Godzilla, and who would want a universe without Godzilla.*

. . .

*Apart from a lot of Japanese, of course.

To clarify, since everyone seems to have missed it, I am trying to point out that using real world concepts of physics and strength of materials is nonsense when it comes to D&D. And that is a good thing! Just accept flying dragons and move on.

P.S. I have a 5e stat-block for Godzilla

 

[dave2008]

It's not freakin' believable to me either... because heck, a gorilla is about 9x as strong as a human. We can presume anything scaled up involves a scaled up version of the heavier simian frame used by a gorillas or chimpanzees. This results in an 18' tall creature with say 30-40x the weight of a person, but say 60-80x as strong. That's a much lower strength to weight ratio that a gorilla or a chimpanzee, but still higher than the vast majority of humans, because well humans are a terrible basis for theoretical strength of animals as we are almost at the bottom end of the scale when it comes to strength to weight ratios.

That's a fair point, but you exaggerate the difference. That is a number zoos and animal trainers often quote. But actual studies show that chimps are about 2x as strong as humans pound for pound. Still a somewhat valid point.

I remember seeing a human and gorilla skeleton side by side in college and I was amazed at how much thicker the bones of the Gorilla were. They are truley much more robust than we are.

 

[Shasarak]

Why be offended by the lack "real world" design in the fire giant when that doesn't apply to D&D

Well mainly I guess because a shield is "real world" design whereas a Dragon is not.