D&D 5E Volo doesn't tell me what some of these things actually are.

[5Shilling]

So I've got my copy of Volo's Guide and I'm enjoying it a lot. Plenty of good stuff to work with, it's a pretty packed book.

The one thing I do find incredibly frustrating though is the return of a problem I had with several of the 4E sourcebooks: some of the entries don't actually describe the creature at all.

The worst one for this is the Firbolg race. In two pages I learn a lot about how Firbolg act, where they live and how they interact with other races... but no-where is there a description of what they are or what they look like.

We have an image, which is fine but a bit non-descript; but is this a typical member of the race? Is it meant to be furry, like some kind of animal-man? How much do they vary from this? What do the females look like? I'm relying entirely on one artist's interpretation. As a DM I want more help describing this race to my players. I don't just want to be describing the same picture to my players every time of of these things turn up; I want an actual mental image that springs from the text, something I can work with and extrapolate from.

Now I love my mythology and I'm familiar with the Irish Book of Invasions, so I know of the Fir Bolg (although they are pretty vague there also). I'm also aware of some of the previous incarnations of the Firbolg in past versions of D&D. What I don't know is what Firbolg are in 5E, and their entry in Volo's Guide just leaves me scratching my head. I can't get an angle on them.

This same problem crops up in some of the subsequent monster entries. What does a Deep Scion look like other "piscine"? Is their true form the piscine one or the humanoid one? The Boggles and Korreds have fantastic illustrations, but if they were not there I wouldn't have a clue what these things looked like. Morkoths are simply a "tentacled monstrosity" and here the image doesn't give me much more to work with either. How does one tell them apart from a Kraken or some other tentacled monster? Thank goodness I have seen pictures of trappers before or I might not have a clue what they are about in this book.

Again, overall I am very happy with this book, but this is the big, big fly in the tasty soup, and I hope it gets nipped in the bud for future products (gotta love them mixed metaphors).

So that this thread is useful and not just me ranting at an otherwise great addition to the game: what's your take on Firbolg in 5E? What are their origins? What are their physical attributes and ranges? What are they?

Or, what are Deep Scions, or any of the other monsters you think need a bit more description for their 5E debut? Yes I could go back and draw on 3E or previous additions, but I'd rather hear your ideas.

Let's go!

 

[Tony Vargas]

The one thing I do find incredibly frustrating though is the return of a problem I had with several of the 4E sourcebooks: some of the entries don't actually describe the creature at all.

Isn't the idea still simply to have an illustration of every creature?

Besides, 5e is very much aimed at fans of past editions, and we all know what all the classic monsters are. I suppose it's rather like the dearth of setting material outside of APs, there's 40 years of setting books out there. The target audience is already familiar.

The worst one for this is the Firbolg race. In two pages I learn a lot about how Firbolg act, where they live and how they interact with other races... but no-where is there a description of what they are or what they look like.

We have an image, which is fine but a bit non-descript; but is this a typical member of the race?

Would it make a lot of sense if it weren't a typical member of the race?

What does a Deep Scion look like other "piscine"? Is their true form the piscine one or the humanoid one? Morkoths are simply a "tentacled monstrosity" and here the image doesn't give me much more to work with either.

I suppose they might have been going with a Lovecraftian angle in those cases.

 

[cbwjm]

If I had to choose, I'd prefer an image to a description, ideally there would be both. I do agree though that it would have been good to include both male and female images of the player races.

 

[ammulder]

I noticed the same, and it was because I had no idea what a Firbolg was. My kids are getting into D&D, and how would I describe one? "Here, look at this"?

Though now that I look, the Monster Manual isn't any different. I just opened to Ghost and Ghoul and neither has any physical description (only pictures).

The Player's Handbook did a much better job of physically describing the PC races, so I guess that's what would have been nice for the Volo's PC races.

 

[Sunseeker]

I noticed the same, and it was because I had no idea what a Firbolg was. My kids are getting into D&D, and how would I describe one? "Here, look at this"?

Though now that I look, the Monster Manual isn't any different. I just opened to Ghost and Ghoul and neither has any physical description (only pictures).

The Player's Handbook did a much better job of physically describing the PC races, so I guess that's what would have been nice for the Volo's PC races.

Yeah, it's a problem I have experienced with a couple of tables. Either I have to come up with a description, which I'm not really good at, or I have to show the table a picture, and risk exposing the name, the text, etc... that I don't want them to see (at that moment). At some point my descriptions of "tall, ugly and grey" don't really differentiate between several monsters.

It shouldn't have been difficult to include a brief description AND a picture.

 

[Jester David]

It is something Pathfinder does well: including two lines of flavour text that can be read aloud.
But one can just go off the picture usually...

 

[5Shilling]

Isn't the idea still simply to have an illustration of every creature?

I'm guessing it is, but I think that's a mistake. Some of the other posters have already pointed out reasons why, but also:

• a picture doesn't always give enough information
• a picture doesn't give an idea of the range and variation possible
• a picture means you are totally reliant on the artist's impression, rather than the author/designer

In the end I can only judge by the end result which is: I'm not sure what some of these creatures are in 5E. I really hope that we can see both illustrations and text descriptions going forward.


Let's have a look at the Deep Scion and come up with some stuff. I'll need more time for the Firbolg because ironically, that leaves me even more at sea.

You're right the Deep Scion has a lovecraftian vibe, and goes nicely with the Kraken Priest and Sea Spawn. Since it is a shapeshifter, giving it traits of the cuttlefish or mimic octopus seems like a good fit - but we don't want it to loo like a mindflayer, so tentacles around the mouth are probably out. Perhaps a cuttlefish-like beak and eyes, mottles, colour-shifting skin and rubbery flesh.

What else?

 

[Steve Carroll]

As far as I can determine from reading various sources, the Firbolg are giantkin similar to the goliath, but are more like tall hippees, rather than jocks like the goliath. On the same note, they are also much more hairy.

If you look at them from a certain point of view, we have aasimar which are half celestial/ human, tieflings which are half fiend/ human, genasi are half-djinni/ human. Then, of course there are the half-elves, half-orcs and so forth. We can look at firbolgs as just another variety of half-giant (possibly even half-Giant/ -Moon Elf? Which would explain why they are so attuned to nature, reclusive, have pointed ears, and the blue-tint skin tone), offered to give a choice to players who want to play a less aggressive half-giant PC. The goliath could have stone giant ancestry, where as a firbolg may have hill giant ancestry, or the like.

In short, the firbolg's skin, and hair color/ tones could be anywhere in the human range, or you could make them a little more exotic and add in blue and/ or grey skin tones. As for eye color, use you imagination as to what kind of giantish ancestry they may have descended from (shy of the goliath which have more obvious stone giant ancestry). Keep the ears cat-like or not. The description of each firbolg is entirely up to the DM. Not exactly helpful, but at least it's a start.

Welcome to D&D v5.0 (or D&D Half-breeds).

 

[Shiroiken]

I agree that a description of the monsters would be nice. I really miss the layout of monsters from 2E, with organization, sleep cycle, rarity, number appearing, habitat, diet, ecology, etc.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6849897]5Shilling[/MENTION]

The Firbolg is a gentle nature giant, shy but with a sly mischievous streak, their bodies hues of mineral earth, their hair like twigs and leaves. They dwell in the forgotten places of the wild like ancient villages in mist-shrouded valleys or overgrown stone ruins. They are descended from those giants who refused to bow to the Ordning, staying true to what they claim is the original culture/faith of giant-kind. However, over time their close contact with mortals has caused the firbolgs to lose their great size, and they are looked down upon as unworthy by true giants.

The Korred is a wild-eyed curmudgeon with goat legs and a kinky mane, prone to excessive jocularity at the expense of serious-minded mortals.

The Morkoth is a squid-sized mesmerizing fish-octopus man, with mesmerizing scales and eyes filled wholly with predatory malice.

The Deep Scion is straight outta Pirates of the Caribbean: Deadman's Chest. Describe them how you would any of the piscine pirates serving Davey Jones.