D&D General Miniatures shouldn't be edition-dependent (a Fire Giant size rant)

[Voadam]

Wouldn't Jotunblood be more appropriate in that case?

Rereading the Gigantean in the Advanced Bestiary page 136 I was misremembering how big they got. It says "Its size increases by up to four categories over that of the base creature (maximum Colossal; see the following table for new dimensions)."

I was reading it as choosing one to four sizes so going from large to huge as an option, but re-reading it I see it would go from large to Colossal.

Jotunblood Giant works mechanically to turn a giant one size bigger from large to huge, but the narrative description there is that a jotunblood is a singular bigger giant among other normal sized giants.

Advanced Bestiary page 155:
"Born mightier and larger than usual for their kind, jotunblood giants tower over their fellows both in height and in power. Often called king-giants by the smaller races, jotunblood giants almost invariably live up to that name, acting as leaders of the other giants they live with. Few giant tribes can boast more than one jotunblood giant, and these creatures rarely beget more. Typically, a jotunblood giant is born when a giant tribe lacks strong leadership. Th e birth of a second jotunblood giant to a tribe that already has one is usually seen as a sign from the giant gods that the tribe has grown too large and must split, with the two halves going their separate ways. Reluctance to do so has led to bloody civil wars and long-held grudges."

The Gigantic template from the Deluxe Book of Templates works too by increasing size by any amount, but the template's doubling of base HD for each size increase might be more than is wanted for conversion purposes, or it could be very right (particularly if trying to recreate 4e style higher level titans).

 

[wingsandsword]

I pretty much disagree. This is pretty much saying that designers should not have the ability to make lore level changes between editions. I feel that setting and lore are just as important of a vector for designers to consider when looking at how to improve the game.

They shouldn't.

What is established canon should stay that way.

Blatant and consistent disregard for established lore was one of the reasons 4th edition was so controversial, for example.

Change the rules, but the lore should be absolute and unchanging. If a designer disagrees and wants to change the lore, replace the designer, not the lore.

Edit: Lore should only be changed if it's completely nonsensical and irreconcilable with other lore, if the lore was in error to begin with For example, in 2nd Edition, the lore said that Mummies are positive energy-based undead and that mummy rot was actually due to a disruptive overload of positive energy in a body (Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead). This made no sense with any other undead-related lore in D&D and was promptly ignored by every later source. That's the only kind of lore change I could accept.

 

[MGibster]

Change the rules, but the lore should be absolute and unchanging. If a designer disagrees and wants to change the lore, replace the designer, not the lore.

Why should the lore be absolute and unchanging? I think they should adapt the lore to suit the needs of current players. At least that's the best course of action to take if they want the setting to remain relevant to contemporary players. I don't think I've ever been particularly bothered by the size of creatures changing between editions. In fact, I don't think I would have realized they had changed without this thread.

 

[wingsandsword]

Why should the lore be absolute and unchanging? I think they should adapt the lore to suit the needs of current players. At least that's the best course of action to take if they want the setting to remain relevant to contemporary players. I don't think I've ever been particularly bothered by the size of creatures changing between editions. In fact, I don't think I would have realized they had changed without this thread.

Canon is canon.

Why would you need to change the lore to "suit the needs of current players"? That makes no sense.

Seriously, I don't see why or how you would need to change any lore to suit any players. Players learn the lore of the game, they shouldn't have the lore re-tailored to them every time WotC marketing decides it's most profitable to churn out another edition on the edition treadmill and say that all prior editions are junk.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

They shouldn't.

What is established canon should stay that way.

Blatant and consistent disregard for established lore was one of the reasons 4th edition was so controversial, for example.

Change the rules, but the lore should be absolute and unchanging. If a designer disagrees and wants to change the lore, replace the designer, not the lore.

Edit: Lore should only be changed if it's completely nonsensical and irreconcilable with other lore, if the lore was in error to begin with For example, in 2nd Edition, the lore said that Mummies are positive energy-based undead and that mummy rot was actually due to a disruptive overload of positive energy in a body (Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead). This made no sense with any other undead-related lore in D&D and was promptly ignored by every later source. That's the only kind of lore change I could accept.

Oh bullocks to this. We amend government constitutions, and yet canon lore is beyond tinkering with?

I mean, when Disney bought Star Wars, they threw away all of the Expanded Universe canon, for the obvious reasons of trying to adapt all that stuff, or working around it, would be an absolute mess. I don't love all the new Star Wars stuff, but I'm pretty certain if the EU remained canon it'd be a heck of a lot worse.

Anyway, lore like everything else can and should be up for scrutiny and changes if necessary. There is no reason why we should shrink from changing canon just because it is canon; bad lore can and should be changed.

I for one am quite pleased with how Van Richten's changes lore, and believe trying to work with previous edition's established content would have made for a worse book.

 

[tommybahama]

Oh bullocks to this. We amend government constitutions, and yet canon lore is beyond tinkering with?

Bad analogy. It is very difficult to amend a government constitution for a reason. Something like Congress plus 3/5ths of the state legislatures must ratify an amendment.

I bet Jefferson himself would have warned that prudence would dictate that canon long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. He'd point to the mess that Disney has made of the Star Wars franchise and sinking sales of the comic book industry.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Bad analogy. It is very difficult to amend a government constitution for a reason. Something like Congress plus 3/5ths of the state legislatures must ratify an amendment.

I bet Jefferson himself would have warned that prudence would dictate that canon long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. He'd point to the mess that Disney has made of the Star Wars franchise and sinking sales of the comic book industry.

My point is that government constitutions, which are far more important than sci-fi/fantasy lore, can and are amended. The U.S. constitution has been amended 27 times.

If Disney hadn't struck the Expanded Universe, they're films would be even more of a mess (believe me, the Skywalker plot after the films in the EU is beyond silly).

And comic book sales flagging has little to do with "lore changes" and more to do with how people just don't like buying single-issue comics as much anymore. Hell, reboots like the new 52 probably have helped salvage their sales for new readers so they don't completely dry up.

 

[Bardic Dave]

I bet Jefferson himself would [...] point to the mess that Disney has made of the Star Wars franchise and sinking sales of the comic book industry.

Yes, this sounds totally plausible and reasonable! Jefferson would absolutely care about sinking comic book sales and Star Wars canon changes! That sounds right up his alley!

 

[jgsugden]

It sucks that people spend cash on support for their role playing, especially on expensive figures, and then find that the things they purchased are negated in a new edition by being removed, changed, etc... It is a disrespectful move.

If asked, I'd have suggested that they kept Hill, Stone, Frost and Fire Giants large, and then kept the Titans from 4E in the game and used them more often than Giants in official product.

I love the feel of Huge giants, and wish they'd always been huge, but with such a large number of large giants sitting on my shelves, I'd liked to have had an official version of those monsters. I can (and have) made my own 'large giant monsters', but it would be nice if it were official. It felt a bit disrespectful when the change was made, although - as I said - it is probably better for people that don't have such an investment. I also feel disrespected that other key elements of prior editions still do not exist, such as robust psionics support. A new edition should support DMs that want to continue their homebrew campaign settings between editions. Grow the options, don't shrink them.

 

[Mecheon]

Why would you need to change the lore to "suit the needs of current players"? That makes no sense.

Just because something's written down doesn't mean it makes sense or it was received well to start with. Things need to be reviewed and revisted, particularly something as big as D&D. Things that worked back in the 80s simply won't work today and will just seem dated at best and potentially insulting at worse

Let's not forget it was canon that Kara Tur used to be west of the main Greyhawk area, but then it ended up being in the east of FR. Game retcons and changes lore since day 1

Besides, everyone's own game inevitably splits off into its own canon. Otherwise I'm pretty sure someone mined out most of Oerth back in the 80s along with enslaving the gods, Dritz died back in Baldur's Gate 2 because someone wanted to wear his armor, and, well, neutronium golem stats are a thing for a reason and I'm pretty sure that broke reality at least once

Regardless though, to take it back to origins, this isn't even the first time giant size changed so. Just keeping to tradition at this point