Goliath Preview? Well, what do you think?

[CRGreathouse]

Which was a problem introduced in 3.5

%&!%@!% idiots!

What do you mean? In 3.0, Large (tall) creatures had 10' reach, and surely Goliaths and other bipeds count as tall rather than long.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Don't encourage them. These kind-of-large-but-not-really rules and ones like them are exceptions to the real rules. That type of crap is the reason 3e was made. There was no standard way of doing things. And they mostly accomplished their goal. Half-Giants are Large or Medium. Goliaths are Large or Medium. They are not the ONLY TWO CREATURES IN EXISTENCE THAT ARE KIND-OF-LARGE!!!! I personally will just make them both Large and that's the end of it. If they need to Medium for some design reason for being PC races, then maybe they shouldn't have been made into PC races in the first place. I don't know what happened to all the good designers at Wizards... Oh wait, yeah I do! They all quit and started their own companies!!

I find the race very interesting and I hope these guys makes it to cannon in 4E (whatever that is). I think that races such as the goliaths have a place in the game.

I do agree, however, that the crunch of the goliaths is sub par. It's sad to see - especially since the fluff looks so good. I'm not at all impressed with compromised game design. It's like they are trying to fix something we have already swollowed hook, line, and sinker. -Sure, there is quite a jump in size from M to L but that's alright with me.

 

[Aaron2]

What ever happened to those old 1e semi-giants like Verbeegs? I don't remember seeing them for MM2.


Aaron

 

[Knight Otu]

Interesting race.
Can't say that I see a reason for them to be monstrous humanoids. They'd fit better as humanoids or giants.
I'm not too worried by the semi-large thing, as long as it remains consistent between the creatures that have it. I'd certainly prefer to have more clear-cut size categories, but there have always been borderilne cases, such as minotaurs or dwarves.

 

[MichaelH]

At first glance I like it. Shouldn't they have a weakness against slings, though?

 

[Tarril Wolfeye]

At first glance I like it. Shouldn't they have a weakness against slings, though?

No, they should have DR x/bludgeoning

But seriously, this "large, but not really large" rubbish is just clunky. Next thing we know, they change Dwarves to small, but with powerful build (may be treated as medium if it's better for him), because, you know, that's just what they are. :\

 

[MacMathan]

It seems that even with the +1 LA there would be very little reason to ever play a half-orc barbarian (or other melee type) again.

The only reason would be if darkvision was a must, but many parties have other races without it who will be dragging along light sources anyway.

 

[Corinth]

Neat idea; not-so-good execution. They ought to be Large.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Well, considering the dwarf sorta is like a mix between the Small & Medium categories, it isn't that bothersome (then again, there hasn't been a PC race which mixes the Small & Medium height categories to the degree of the Medium-Large mix for goliaths & half-giants; for example, gaining +1 to AC & attacks, +4 to Hide, etc., though keeping Medium-sized benefits such as movement rate, the base 1.0 x Str lift & carry ratios, etc.).

Then again, this racial ability isn't that new, either--there was a Jotunblood feat in Races of Faerun, IIRC, that pretty much worked the same way (a feat that I kinda liked, actually--seemed perfect for any sort of immensely tall characters [like Fafhrd from Fritz Leiber's works, or Bombaata from Conan the Destroyer]). Then again, it was a feat only available to 1st-level PCs from a certain region.

 

[Chronosome]

I like 'em. Flavorful and unique. I could have fun playing with these guys.

On the rollplaying angle: I don't mind the "medium.5" stuff. Dwarves get stability even though they don't have four legs, and I don't see that breaking the game...

Hmm...four-legged dwarves...kinda gachnolothy.