Giant-hurled boulders: Should they be ranged touch attacks?

[Darklone]

Agreed. Hurling boulders should have a severely shorter range than the typical giant rockthrowing.

 

[Stormrunner]

A 50 pound boulder is about the size of a gallon jug of milk or a little smaller, IIRC.

When players (and DMs!) think of giants throwing rocks, they tend to have a mental image of the giant hefting a big boulder in both hands and bodily heaving it a hundred feet or so, rather like a human flinging a 50-lb sack of mail into a truck. But given the weights and ranges listed in the MM, it's much more like a human throwing a baseball, or at most (for the smallest giants) like a human flinging a shotput.

A 50-lb rock, flung with the strength of a Large giant's arm, wouldn't flatten a breastplate but would almost certainly badly dent it. A 150-lb rock, flung two-handed by a Huge giant, just might flatten that breastplate. The rock damage and accuracy are, I believe, deliberately lowballed (it's really an improvised weapon, after all) in order to allow PCs to have a chance to actually close to melee range instead of being crunched from 500 feet away. More heroic and all that.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

A fifty pound wouldn't flatten a breastplate it would completely mangle it!! A good solid hit with a twelve pound sledge will punch a dent more than two inches deep in eight gauge steel, which is about the right thickness for plate armor and significantly more resilient due to better mettalurgy. A fifty pound chunk of concrete just DROPPED from thirty or forty feet up on the chest of a person wearing plate armor would stave in the breastplate break their ribs like kindling and rupture most of their internal organs.

If anything the rock throwing is a deliberate lowball, even for a giant twelve feet tall and thirteen or fourteen hundred pounds fifty pounds is more like hurling a five pounds dumbell than a baseball. Chop the range down to an increment more reasonable for a thrown weapon, say 40ft maybe 50ft, and ramp up the damage quite a bit.

 

[Stormrunner]

I just said it was lowballed, didn't I?

When I said "flatten" I was thinking like "stomping a beer can" flatten, as in the wearer's ribcage is a thin red paste.

Size-wise, the 50lb rock would be to a giant like a baseball to a human. It is far denser than a baseball, though ... 50 lbs for a 12-foot critter would be roughly equivalent to, um ... (scribble scribble) about 7-8 pounds for a six-foot critter? Yeah, it's more like a shotput than a baseball. Anyway, my point was that the rock is a lot smaller than most people think (and yet should be deadlier than in the RAW). A human hit by a giant's thrown rock should probably be knocked down automatically.

However, to return to the original question - if the thrown rock can mangle a breastplate or shield, imagine what it would do to an unarmored person. And if it hits at an angle, it's more likely to "skip" off hard, smooth armor than soft flesh. So it seems to me that armor should provide some protection. Plus, the stereotypical Mythic Image of the Giant is "big and clumsy", so I'm not all hot and bothered if their flung rocks miss a lot. They're supposed to miss a lot.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I just said it was lowballed, didn't I?

Wasn't trying to disagree more trying to pile onto your idea.

Armor shouldn't be worthless, but it at the same time maybe other aspects of it needs a little tweaking? Dropping the range down to something more reasonable for a thrown object would compensate for an increase in base damage to make it a harsher thing to face. It would be nice to tamper with the to-hit probability by messing with way it uses BAB, but a pure touch attack would be too harsh even with the reduced range. Maybe some hybrid mechanic would be better but I don't think it would be worth the effort and require too many changes. So maybe just leave off with little tweaks to damage and range?

 

[nittanytbone]

Historical Perspective:

For some reason, in AD&D (1E), giant boulders disregarded Dexterity adjustments to AC. Thus, they were sort of like touch attacks.

 

[starwed]

Brutal Throw.

A good candidate for replacing with Brutal Throw is Improved Sunder (or possibly Improved Overrun.)

For some reason, in AD&D (1E), giant boulders disregarded Dexterity adjustments to AC. Thus, they were sort of like touch attacks.

If by "like touch attacks" you mean "exactly the opposite of touch attacks" then, yes. ^_^

Giants should not be throwing at the front-line fighter; they should be throwing at the party mage or rogue with low AC.

Well, Hill giants aren't always as tactical as that. Holds for the rest of them, but then the OP explicitly mentioned even the wizard as a hard to hit target.

 

[frankthedm]

A good candidate for replacing with Brutal Throw is Improved Sunder (or possibly Improved Overrun.)

Improved overrun needs to go since wotc nerfed the overrun maneuver. I strongly recommend reevaluating the Giant’s CR though since the brutal throw feat really changes what a giant can do in combat.

Then drop improved sunder for quickdraw and rain down death and dismemberment.

 

[Victim]

A fifty pound wouldn't flatten a breastplate it would completely mangle it!! A good solid hit with a twelve pound sledge will punch a dent more than two inches deep in eight gauge steel, which is about the right thickness for plate armor and significantly more resilient due to better mettalurgy. A fifty pound chunk of concrete just DROPPED from thirty or forty feet up on the chest of a person wearing plate armor would stave in the breastplate break their ribs like kindling and rupture most of their internal organs.

Amazingly, normal people do die when hit by a giant's rock. Probably even if they have armor. And they'll probably die more quickly than a partially crushed person (not that I claim any medical knowledge), because DnD doesn't do lingering deaths.