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

[billd91]

Well, for a forum that was created as a 3rd edition fan site, and still kept a lot of active 3rd edition players after 4e came out, it's frustrating when I come back here after an absence of several years and suddenly I'm treated like a weirdo for playing and talking about the same game I've always played and talked about here.

 

[ccs]

Increasing the size of a fire giant from large to huge would have numerous impacts on the game, it's not a harmless change

It would change the space it takes on the battlefield. (you can't just say "it follows the rules for only a large base" when it's 3 by 3 instead of 2 by 2)

This is true that it will still cover a 3x3 area

It would change the reach and attacks-of-opportunity of the creature.
It would change its armor class
It would change its modifiers for grappling

Not if I, the DM, say otherwise. And I have done this. Shockingly the world did not end, and our game proceeded quite smoothly.

It would mean that a dungeon drawn to be in-scale for size large creatures should be re-drawn with bigger hallways and rooms.

This would be an inconvenience.
You know how we handled it? We put the mini on the map anyways & just ignored any bit that stuck out of the area. It's worked better/worse at varying times.

It probably should change the CR of the creature.

No real need to though.

I'm the DM, but the game has rules, and creatures are balanced a specific way, for a specific CR, for a reason. I'm not about to go re-writing creature stats and trying to "eyeball" a CR change just because a miniature doesn't fit the game.

Suit yourself. Limit yourself as you please.
Me? I'll keep altering the game as I please (been doing that for 40 years, no reason to stop now). But I'm a bit lazy, so in the case of having a 3x3 giant in 3x/PF, I'd take the easy route of keeping the stats as are & just drawing the map to accommodate the mini.

 

[see]

Right, but the creature has to be bigger than the point where large becomes huge.

Yes, but we don't know where that line is drawn in 5e.

We know where it's drawn in 2e, at 12 feet high. We know where it's drawn in 3e, at 16 feet high.

We know (me, only after the illustration's been pointed out to me) that the giants in the Monster Manual in 5e have both the height and the size category of the giants in 2e. But all those heights are consistent with the 3e definition of the size category, too.

So we don't know if the large-huge line is 3e's 16-foot, 2e's 12-foot, or something else. Heck, we can't be sure there's even a consistent one.

If there's a consistent line, it's set no lower than 10 feet (since 5e ogres are given as Large and 9-to-10 feet high in the Monster Manual). But that still doesn't tell you what size category a 10.5-foot giant (like the 1e/3e hill giant), a 12-foot giant (like the 1e/3e stone and fire giants), or a 15-foot giant (like the 1e/3e frost giant) would be in 5e.

So, if you are presented with a giant in 5e and all you are told is that it's Huge, all you know is that it's probably taller than 10 feet, because it's a bigger size category than an ogre.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, but we don't know where that line is drawn in 5e.

We know where it's drawn in 2e, at 12 feet high. We know where it's drawn in 3e, at 16 feet high.

We know (me, only after the illustration's been pointed out to me) that the giants in the Monster Manual in 5e have both the height and the size category of the giants in 2e. But all those heights are consistent with the 3e definition of the size category, too.

So we don't know if the large-huge line is 3e's 16-foot, 2e's 12-foot, or something else. Heck, we can't be sure there's even a consistent one.

If there's a consistent line, it's set no lower than 10 feet (since 5e ogres are given as Large and 9-to-10 feet high in the Monster Manual). But that still doesn't tell you what size category a 10.5-foot giant (like the 1e/3e hill giant), a 12-foot giant (like the 1e/3e stone and fire giants), or a 15-foot giant (like the 1e/3e frost giant) would be in 5e.

So, if you are presented with a giant in 5e and all you are told is that it's Huge, all you know is that it's probably taller than 10 feet, because it's a bigger size category than an ogre.

We know that a stone giant is at least about 15ft tall, because otherwise it couldn’t control 15ft of space. It doesn’t have arms down to its feet, after all.

I don’t understand what possible use there would be in more precise information? Surely individuals vary at least several feet?

 

[NaturalZero]

Buy a single 3" base fire giant for your 3.5 game? Cool. Now there's a Huge sized fire giant boss to stat up. Easy.

/thread

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Um, I'm not sure miniature sizes have ever been consistent. Just go with what looks cool or works for you. Don't sweat the small stuff.

(Ah, sometimes I crack myself up)/

Cheers, Ak'kelhar

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Buy a single 3" base fire giant for your 3.5 game? Cool. Now there's a Huge sized fire giant boss to stat up. Easy.

/thread

Yeah, OP doesn’t like that answer for some reason, but it’s a pretty good one.

I mean, seems in line with giants for the giant king to be bigger than his vassals.

I know I use the cloud giant I got from reaper for the Queen of Giants, but I wish I had a version of her that was twice as tall.

 

[see]

We know that a stone giant is at least about 15ft tall, because otherwise it couldn’t control 15ft of space. It doesn’t have arms down to its feet, after all.

Would you also say that "We know that a kobold is at least about 5ft tall, because otherwise it couldn’t control 5ft of space. It doesn’t have arms down to its feet, after all"?

Space controlled is demonstrably an abstraction that does not care that kobolds are (per Volo's Guide to Monsters) "between 2 and 3 feet tall". Therefore space controlled does not, in fact, tell you what the minimum height of a Huge creature is. If the next 5e monster book has a Huge giant that's given a height of 12 feet tall in its description, neither the size category nor the height given contradict anything already established in 5e in the slightest.

So, then, what ties this point into the thread? It indicates that even if giant heights had been entirely consistent from edition to edition, frozen at the numbers given in 1974, that doesn't indicate that "space controlled", reflected in square base sizes for a grid, would stay the same edition to edition.

We can demonstrate this, in fact, by comparing 3rd edition with 3.5. The giants didn't change either stated height or size category between 3e and 3.5, but the space they took up on a battelmap did. A 3e hill, stone, frost, or fire giant had a "Face/Reach" of "5 ft. by 5 ft./10 ft.", meaning that it only took up one 5-foot-square on the grid. Which meant it could only be directly surrounded by 8 humans, and 8 fire giants could directly surround one human. Any fire giant miniature made with a base size compatible with 3e would be incompatible with the 3.5 rules, and any 3.5 mini incompatible with the 3e rules, even though the official size of a fire giant didn't change in the slightest.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Would you also say that "We know that a kobold is at least about 5ft tall, because otherwise it couldn’t control 5ft of space. It doesn’t have arms down to its feet, after all"?

The Kobold is Small, and the rules for small creatures describes them as being notably smaller than medium creatures.

We also have playable kobolds with description of their specific height range.

So, not a comparable example.

 

[Kezghan]

Pathfinder Battles miniatures line from Wizkids has 3e giant sizes.
Search for giant at Minisgallery to see.

Good luck!