|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 9:57PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Wandering Monsters
The Bigger They Come...By James Wyatt Ogres, trolls, minotaurs . . . well, let’s go bigger, shall we? Giants have been a fixture in D&D since the G series of modules back in 1978: Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (G1), Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl (G2), and Hall of the Fire Giant King (G3). Each adventure featured one of the races of evil giants, mostly omitting the giants that are at least sometimes not evil: stone, cloud, and storm. So six types of giant are firmly established in D&D lore. Lots of others have cropped up from time to time (mountain giants, fog giants, jungle giants, reef giants, and so on), but for this column we’ll focus on the classics. Talk about this column here. 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 1:25AM
#2
|
|
|
Um, was there anything new at all here?
I mean, I could have gotten most of that from reading old MMs.
Altho hard coded Strength with Halflings capable of being mightier than Hill Giants still sends me into chuckle fits.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 4:07AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
Giants could be a excelent rival or antagonist for dragons and draconic creatures. A giant should be the creature could kick-ass dragons. The dragons-giants conflict could inspire lots of stories. The third faction should the fays, the descendants from old deities (or primordial forces) who lose a ancient cosmic war .
* Stone giants can be almost "noble savages", but please, they shouldn´t be too stupy.
* Hill giants are only "big brother" of ogres (and black sheep of giant family). I say they can stronger but background is almot identical. Do you rebember Lovecraft´s myths about ancient but degenerated races? Ogres could have been created or "raised" to be slaves. Hill giants and ogres should have got different style or identity, no only different monster stats and look. Ogres can´t be only weaker version of hill giants.
* I suposse a link stone giants and PC race goliath could be posible. (goliaths and half-giants are two different´s races in next D&D?).
* I imagine giants like creatures with mystical links with elemental force and primordials. When the ancient gods fighted the primordials, the giants were the army. Some giants would hate the current pantheons because they know their ancestor were the gods of the loser faction. (Do you rebember the giants-Asgardian deities war (Aesir vs Vanir) from Wiking mythology or Olimpics vs Titans for Titanomachy?)
* Other optionn is some giants are secretly kings and rules of mortals (by power of change shape and size), or the noble blood used magic to become giants with longer lifes that elves (something like the socerer-kings from Dark Sun but with giant blood instead dragon of Tyr). Try imagine the surprise by PCs when they are going to kill the leader of raider mammoths-rider ogres tribe but he is a shaman verbeeg (AD&D giant), or the elite bodyguards of evil high priest of forbidden hellfire cult are really fire giants.
* I wonder AD&D firbolgs were giants who lived for too much time in the feywild (and he could have got a piece of fay blood). In the past giant tried conquer the feywild but fays didn´t allow it.
* I like the idea of fomorian like tainted giant bloodline. Formorian could be giants who survived a zombie/ghoul plague but the sickness affected by other way...(and the plague stopped when the mindless undeads were eaten by too hungry fomorians). Other options is usual humans who used tainted magic to be "perfect soldier" but it didn´t work totally like they wanted and he became fomorian-like creatures. (I am sorry, I can´t avoid forget the fomori from Werewolf: the Apocalypse. I like the idea of when you are going to defeat a usual mortal you discover is a monster who transforms front of your eyes)
* I wish giants riding paraceratheriums (a prehistoric beast, the largest land mammal known). Ice Age animals could be in the second monster manual.
Verbeeg and voadkyns shouldn´t be fogorten.
* What if any (two heads giant race) ettins could have got four arms and psionic powers (by a added template, and because mind slayer or the zern created it to be host of experimental psionic parasite)?
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 5:44AM
#4
|
|
|
I like the descriptions of the individual races with the exception of Titans. While I agree that including both old style Titans and 4e Titans is important and should be a major goal, calling them both Titans is unnecessary and confusing.
I am mostly a fan of AD&D systems, but rarely if ever used the AD&D Titans in two decades of playing those versions of the game. I LOVE 4e Titans and the connection they have to Primordials, Giants and even 4e Archons. However I wouldn't be too upset if AD&D Titans kept the "titan" name and 4e Titans were called something else to help differentiate them. Having them both be the same race with the same origins strains my belief too much. Make AD&D Titans related to the Gods and 4e Titans related to Primordials.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 5:45AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I liked it all, except I wasn't quite sure where the "Hil Giants have eating contests and rank themselves according to their ability to eat" came from.
That seemed a bit.... odd, to say the least. I can see them as gluttons. But I not choosing their leaders based on who can win a pie pig eating contest.
Was that part of the G-module or just where did that bit of story/ fluff come from?
Frankly - being big and dumb -I'd expect them to pick their leaders by whacking each other over the head. Last one standing is in charge. Eating contests seem awfully tame and pacifistic for such a brute.
Carl
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 5:48AM
#6
|
|
|
Um, was there anything new at all here?
I mean, I could have gotten most of that from reading old MMs.
I think that's kind of the point. "These aren't broke, we're not 'fixing' them."
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 5:56AM
#7
|
|
|
I like the descriptions of the individual races with the exception of Titans. While I agree that including both old style Titans and 4e Titans is important and should be a major goal, calling them both Titans is unnecessary and confusing.
I don't think the difference is actually that great. The classic titan is clearly a storm titan, what with its fondness for chain lightning and general Zeus-iness. (And yeah, I know Zeus killed titans.) Sounds like they're just opening up that concept some more. And I really like the note that every titan is unique. At that weight class, a monster really should be. Even at the highest levels, titans aren't something you're going to be fighting lots and lots of; they're "final boss" material.
The primordials vs. gods thing is highly setting dependent, not worth dividing the "titan" concept in two over. When you get down to it, the ancient history of the cosmos is simply not something relevant to gameplay in the default D&D campaign. If a DM wants to make it relevant to their campaign, they're free to decide which side of the line the titans fall on - or maybe, like 4E's abominations, they fall on both sides.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 6:01AM
#8
|
|
|
Frankly - being big and dumb -I'd expect them to pick their leaders by whacking each other over the head. Last one standing is in charge. Eating contests seem awfully tame and pacifistic for such a brute.
Every monster and its auntie picks their leaders by whacking each other over the head. The eating contest thing seems a bit silly, but I approve of it as an attempt to do something with a little more character and show that even big, stupid, evil monsters don't have societies totally defined by violence. And it isn't hard to justify such "pacifism". Fighting is work, and hill giants are lazy. A cultural practice that lets them fill their faces is going to be much more appealing than a cultural practice where they have to pit all their strength against a guy just as strong as they.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 6:07AM
#9
|
|
|
The primordials vs. gods thing is highly setting dependent, not worth dividing the "titan" concept in two over. When you get down to it, the ancient history of the cosmos is simply not something relevant to gameplay in the default D&D campaign. If a DM wants to make it relevant to their campaign, they're free to decide which side of the line the titans fall on - or maybe, like 4E's abominations, they fall on both sides.
I totally disagree. It hurts nothing in the rules, or general D&D default setting to separate them. However, if you don't it does cause issues down the line when writing the World Axis cosmology when suddenly you have to separate them.
Real world mythology has nothing to do with it. D&D Titans have never had anything to do with Greek Titans, sharing only their name, which honestly just means they are big. 4e Primordials are more like Greek Titans than anything that has ever appeared in D&D before.
I would prefer to see Primordials --> Archons --> 4e Titans --> Giants on one side, and Gods --> Angels --> AD&D Titans --> [Giant-kin maybe?] on the other side.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 6:09AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Frankly - being big and dumb -I'd expect them to pick their leaders by whacking each other over the head. Last one standing is in charge. Eating contests seem awfully tame and pacifistic for such a brute.
Every monster and its auntie picks their leaders by whacking each other over the head. The eating contest thing seems a bit silly, but I approve of it as an attempt to do something with a little more character and show that even big, stupid, evil monsters don't have societies totally defined by violence. And it isn't hard to justify such "pacifism". Fighting is work, and hill giants are lazy. A cultural practice that lets them fill their faces is going to be much more appealing than a cultural practice where they have to pit all their strength against a guy just as strong as they.
Perhaps. But this sounds much more appropriate as a one-off idea: Most hill giants are lazy and cruel and known for whacking each other over the head, but these hill giants over here are different - they determine their leader by seeing who can eat the most.
For most hill giants, I'd expect to see cause and effect flipped: The leader isn't the leader because he eats the most, the leader eats the most because he is the leader. Maybe he eats the most because he is the best at takig food from his lessers, maybe he eats the most because he is better at raiding the villagers, maybe he eats the most because he is a bit stronger and cleverer than the others.
In short - I have no problem with - in fact I like - the idea of them being driven by their 'giant-sized' appetites; gluttony (and prodigious drinking) both seem perfectly inline with what I would expect. It's just the idea of them using such a civilized way of picking their leader that seems out of place to me.
Carl
|
|
|
