D&D 5E Garments of Critter Muscle and the Giantish Conundrum

[JoeCrow]

Ok, so here's the deal. Because I'm a huge nerd, I just spent a couple of hours picking through the giant stats from 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd edition for the classic 6 giant races (and the ogre). The stuff for 5th comes from both the new packet Belt of Giant Strength info and the Wandering Monsters and Dragon's Eye View articles from last month and some of it's kinda implied, rather than stated outright. The other info comes from the Monster Manuals for the relevant editions.

This is all part of my Make a More Reasonable Set of Giant Strength Belts Project. So, here's the table I made:

(Oh gods, I hope the formatting comes through)

		Str (5/4/3)		5th		4th		3rd			2nd

Ogre		18-19/21/21	Large (9 ft)	Large		Large (10 ft) 	Large (10 ft) 

Hill		19-21/21/25	xx (18 ft)	Large		Large (10.5 ft)	Large (16 ft)

Stone		20-23/22/27	xx (20 ft)	Large		Large (12 ft)	Huge (18 ft)

Frost		21-23/23/29	xx (20 ft)	Large		Large (15 ft)	Huge (21 ft)

Fire		22-25/23/31	xx (18 ft)	Large		Large (12 ft)	Huge (18 ft)

Cloud	23-27/x/35		xx (22 ft)	Large		Large (18 ft)	Huge (24 ft)

Storm	24-29/30/39	xx (22 ft)	Large		Large (21 ft)	Garg (26 ft)

Table Notes: The Strength column info for 5th edition comes from the Wandering Monsters article bit "In classic D&D lore, the Strength score of a giant rises with its position in the giant hierarchy, with hill giants at Strength 19 (just a peg above ogres) and storm giants at a prodigious 24 (just short of the mighty titans)." That's combined with the rating for the appropriate Belts of Giant Strength, which are kinda different. Also, we don't have any established official Size info for the giants, but we do have actual average heights.

So, what have we learned?

The magic item strength ratings vs "classic D&D lore" jumped considerably. Ogre went up a point, Hill up 2, Stone up 3, Frost up 2, Fire up 3, Cloud up 4, and Storm up 5 points. 4th editions strength ratings were flatter than I'd thought, until you get to the Storm Giant. 3rd editions strength ratings are balls-out crazy.

As for size, in 5th edition the heights are oddly flat, ranging from 18 to 22 feet except for the puny ogre at 9 feet. 4th never established any actual height info for the giants, just classifying them all as "Large" as far as I can tell, which is less than helpful. 3rd keeps them all at Large, but makes that range from 10 to 21 feet, despite the fact that the official Size table from the MM sez that Huge starts at 16 feet. 2nd edition has the Hill at Large for 16 feet, Stone through Cloud at Huge for 18 through 24 feet, and the Storm at Gargantuan for 26 feet.

TEAL DEER Alert: (too late!) So, yeah, the strength and size of the giants have kinda jumped all over the place going from edition to edition. Each version's kept the basic hierarchy of power more-or-less the same, but the rules iterations of that hierarchy have moved around. The challenge is gonna be making that hierarchy interact rationally (and entertainingly) with the basic character systems.

I really like the idea of bounded accuracy and flatter math for this edition; as much as I dug the hell out of 3rd conceptually, the math was hella crazy. I'm worried that they're moving away from that. I'd prefer having the big critters Strength ratings be flatter and get more bang from size difference for stuff like breaking down walls and moving huge stuff around, instead of moving back towards Strength ratings of eleventy billion.

For the Belts/Gauntlets of Critter Muscle, I'd prefer a system of flat strength replacement (18 through 24) combined with changing the wearer's size classification to Large/Huge/whatever for lifting/dragging/encumbrance/whatever and weapon size use, and maybe giving the wearer access to whatever rock-throwing mechanic they give the giants. That'd make them useful even for folks who aren't getting too much of a stat boost from the strength change.

What do y'all think?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You really should be comparing bonuses to attack/damage from the scores, not the scores themselves, as the value of the score has varied over the years and is not directly comparable.

Also, the range of achievable PC abilities (attacks, defenses, hit points) compared to giants similar abilities has varied over the editions as well. Giants are more than a strength score; they should be compared more holistically.

 

[JoeCrow]

You really should be comparing bonuses to attack/damage from the scores, not the scores themselves, as the value of the score has varied over the years and is not directly comparable.

Point, there. Back to the notebook.

Also, the range of achievable PC abilities (attacks, defenses, hit points) compared to giants similar abilities has varied over the editions as well. Giants are more than a strength score; they should be compared more holistically.

On the other hand, that'd take for-flippin'-ever.

 

[Roger]

Maybe also check out the various Potions of Giant Strength.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[MortalPlague]

For the Belts/Gauntlets of Critter Muscle, I'd prefer a system of flat strength replacement (18 through 24) combined with changing the wearer's size classification to Large/Huge/whatever for lifting/dragging/encumbrance/whatever and weapon size use...

(Emphasis mine)

You raise some good points, and it's interesting to see how giants have shaped up over the editions. But please, please, please, no oversize weapon use. I really hope there's no version of 'monkey grip' anywhere in sight in 5th Edition.

Personally, I'm quite curious how the items affect the flat math. It seems like it would make things pretty crazy, but perhaps that's what they're going for with magic items? I can picture a players' eyes lighting up when they get their hands on a belt of giant strength.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm quite happy with the old giant strength from OD&D. Same chance to hit as a hill giant and double damage on a successful attack. Once the move was made to large flat hit/damage bonuses that stacked with existing level based hit probability, magic weapon, specialization, etc. then things got really silly fast.

The old classic provides really great benefits to lower level characters, and still great double damage for higher level characters. A very elegant and balanced solution right out of the gate and not bad for a first try "before anyone knew what they were doing" in rpg design.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

For the Belts/Gauntlets of Critter Muscle, I'd prefer a system of flat strength replacement (18 through 24) combined with changing the wearer's size classification to Large/Huge/whatever for lifting/dragging/encumbrance/whatever and weapon size use, and maybe giving the wearer access to whatever rock-throwing mechanic they give the giants. That'd make them useful even for folks who aren't getting too much of a stat boost from the strength change.

That's pretty bad for game balance.

The first time I had such an item (back in 2e), I was playing a cleric. We rolled stats, as they hadn't invented point buy back then (not in the core rules anyway), and I put my lowest score into my least relevant stat - so I had a 5 Charisma. I don't recall if Charisma had anything to do with Turn Undead, but I wouldn't have cared if it did.

We found an item that flat-out gave you a Charisma of 18. The party gave it to me. It's a good thing Charisma wasn't useful in Dragon Mountain, because otherwise I would have gone on a rampage.

The item you're suggesting is a "turn into a giant" polymorph item, and that sounds like a minor artifact that giants would kill (literally) to take back. Generally giants don't like it when someone ritually murders one of them (or probably more than one, magic not being that efficient) and turns their essence into a magical item allowing a non-giant to steal their strength and very form.

Okay, I made up the rules for making such an item, but given how much power it has, I think that's pretty relevant.

You really should be comparing bonuses to attack/damage from the scores, not the scores themselves, as the value of the score has varied over the years and is not directly comparable.

From 3rd onward, each stat's value has essentially remained the same.

 

[B.T.]

What I'd suggest doing is varying the Strength improvement by the base Strength score of the user.

Strength of 8 or less: +8 bonus bonus.
Strength of 9-13: +7 bonus.
Strength of 14-17: +6 bonus.
Strength of 18-20: +5 bonus.

Of course, D&D traditionally favors hyperspecialization, so the item would still probably go to the guy with 18 Strength rather than the guy with 8 Strength.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I just want to add that "Garments of Critter Muscle" is an inspired name.

I'm looking forward to seeing Pantaloons of Penguin Power, Mittens of Mouse Might, Lingerie of Lemur Leaping, Brassieres of Boar Brutishness, and similar items in 5E.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

From 3rd onward, each stat's value has essentially remained the same.

True, but that wasn't the case when the various Gauntlets and Girdles originated in 1E. 12 to 25 STR wasn't linear in terms of bonuses. I think the expectation of logical progression and relationg to specific giant flavor is colored by the 1E experience.