Is Giant still a type or a subtype now?

[harpy]

So the Bestiary is a bit confusing. All of the giant like creatures are now listing "giant" as a subtype, while on page 312 the entry is for "Giant Type".

It seems as if the shift is towards making giants humanoid types which Giant as a subtype, which is a change from 3.5.

One issue that does come up from this is that now giants creatures can have the enlarge person spell cast on them, making them REALLY big, along with their weapon. This could be a big problem in efforts to have large size PCs stay reasonably balanced.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

According to the Pathfinder Reference Document, giant is a subtype of humanoid.

Creature SubTypes
Some creatures have one or more subtypes. Subtypes add additional abilities and qualities to a creature.
...
...
Giant Type: A giant is a humanoid creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size.​

Giant isn't listed under types. Instead, it's listed under subtypes. (Even though it says "Giant Type."

 

[pawsplay]

In 3.0 the spell was just enlarge, which was in many ways more fun.

 

[Xendria]

But there are no base races in Pathfinder that are size large. I can see where it would be an issue if you were adding those to your game, but Paizo didn't build the Bestiary to smoothly run monstrous players.

 

[frankthedm]

This could be a big problem in efforts to have large size PCs stay reasonably balanced.

Large PCs aren't reasonably balanced and paizo decided that the monster book was not meant to be an addendum to the PHB races chapter. Thus giants and ogres were made into humanoids with no fears of a player characters being able to cast "enhuge ogre" on the party tank.

IMHO Paizo layered the vileness on thick in the ogre's description to remind DMs that 'these things are monsters', thus discourage them being allowed as PCs.

This lumbering giant's beady eyes are devoid of wit or kindness, and its puffy face features a wide mouth with ill-fitting teeth.
.....
Stories are told of ogres—horrendous stories of brutality and savagery, cannibalism and torture. Of rape and dismemberment, necrophilia, incest, mutilation, and all manners of hideous murder. Those who have not encountered ogres know the stories as warnings. Those who have survived such encounters know these tales to be tame compared to the truth.

It also looks like Paizo recognized the likelihood of a PC centaur beiing allowed...

Undersized Weapons (Ex) Although a centaur is Large, its upper torso is the same size as that of a Medium humanoid. As a result, they wield weapons as if they were one size category smaller than their actual size (Medium for most centaurs).

 

[pawsplay]

That's a quiet rules-change... 3.5 had a centaur's weapons doing Large damage, the implication being that a centaur's human half was fairly well-statured and quite strong. That makes sense, of course, but the Pf version is probably more typical of how centaurs are portrayed.

 

[Remathilis]

Poor Gnomes; they get a bonus to a monster type that no longer exists.

Defensive Training: Dwarves get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype.

Defensive Training: Gnomes get a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant type.

Bolded Emphasis Mine.

 

[James Jacobs]

Poor Gnomes; they get a bonus to a monster type that no longer exists.





Bolded Emphasis Mine.

That is, of course, an error. The Gnome entry should list it as the giant subtype. Since there is no Giant "type" in Pathfinder... it's just another kind of humanoid.

 

[Remathilis]

That is, of course, an error. The Gnome entry should list it as the giant subtype. Since there is no Giant "type" in Pathfinder... it's just another kind of humanoid.

I figured it was just an artifact left over from the original SRD entry.