|
The newest from the 4th Edition Monster Manual is up.
For those with no care to link:
However, giants as a group had some problems. Many giants of previous editions suffered from being too similar to each other. Hill giants and stone giants, for example, behaved almost identically in combat and differed only in Armor Class and Intelligence (stone giant elders were a rare exception.) Yet at the same time, giants as a whole had little in common other than being good at throwing and catching rocks, and carrying around sacks filled with random junk. That’s just not enough to hang an entire creature type on.
Later Monster Manuals introduced more interesting kinds of giants, such as the death giant, wrapped in captive souls, and the eldritch giant, a highly intelligent being that could use magic items and spells to devastating effect. The fantastic qualities of such giants made them more distinctive and challenging opponents. As part of the overall 4th Edition design philosophy, we took the best of those ideas to give giants more variety. At the same time, we decided to emphasize the more supernatural aspects of giants as a unifying factor.
The new cosmology, rooted in a great war between the primordial first creators and the gods, offered a way to incorporate giants into the setting. Many existing giants already embodied elemental forces, such as stone, fire, and wind. The natural next step was to make them into elemental beings, the first creatures shaped by the primordials to assist them in their work. This approach actually returned giants to their Classical roots as creatures embodying natural forces. In keeping with that ancestry, titans also became an elemental race, precursors to and creators of the lesser giants. Now a titan isn’t just a big dude with a ton of spell-like powers, but a powerful leader whose nature is closely tied to an element or kind of energy.
Having been forged in the Elemental Chaos, giants moved into other worlds. The fall of the primordials drove their creations into the planes, where they adapted to local conditions and became less closely tied to their origins. Some giants built mighty empires in the world, enslaving the dwarves in so doing. By adding this backstory to dwarves in the implied setting of the game, we were able to provide some roleplaying hooks for that race, as well as better define the roles of elemental dwarflike creatures in the setting, most notably galeb duhr and azers.
A few, such as the death giants, embody their adopted planes more than the elements—but that heritage lives on, along with their memories of ancient power and empire. When the primordials stir, giants are naturally drawn to their side in order to fight once more for control of creation.
Giants are hulking humanoid creatures with fundamental ties to the world, be that bedrock, uncontrollable fires, raging storms, or inevitable death. The first giants were massive titans of fire and frost, storm and stone. These giants labored under primordial lords to shape the newly forming world.
In the eons since the first days, giants have multiplied and moved on, finding places to call their own in planes beyond the Elemental Chaos, including the Shadowfell and the Feywild, and even in the realm of their masters’ deific foes, the Astral Sea. However, giants prefer the world their labor helped create, and giants of every variety can be found upon it. Indeed, when the primordials retreated from the world, one of the first empires of that dawn era was one created by giants, and their slaves were the children of Moradin. But those heady days are long vanished.
Giants and titans tend to lair in extreme environments, including scrublands, mountain peaks, volcanic calderas, and searing deserts. These brutal landscapes remind giants of the Elemental Chaos where their ancestors first drew breath.
Giants as a whole answer to no particular overlord or higher power, nor are they known to cooperate among themselves. Indeed, giant clans often make war each other, though no one except giants know why they fight. However, should ever an imprisoned or lost primordial return to the world, giants of the lineage once loyal to it would obey that ancient one’s command.
Giants have marshaled just so in past primordial awakenings. Giants have long memories and longer oral histories, and most clans await the day they can renew their claim on the world in service to an unstoppable primordial entity.
--Jennifer Clarke Wilkes
Earth Giant
Creatures of stone and rock, earth giants are mean, uncouth, territorial monsters that often enslave smaller, weaker creatures.
Earth giants live in mountainside caves, as well as valleys, rocky barrens, canyons, and foothills.
Hill Giant Level 13 Brute
Large natural humanoid (giant) XP 800
Initiative +5 Senses Perception +7
HP 159; Bloodied 79
AC 25; Fortitude 27, Reflex 21, Will 23
Speed 8
Greatclub (standard; at-will)
WeaponReach 2; +15 vs. AC; 1d10 + 5 damage.
Sweeping Club (standard; encounter)*Weapon
The hill giant makes a greatclub attack against two Medium or smaller targets; on a hit, the target is pushed 2 squares and knocked prone.
Hurl Rock (standard; at-will)
Ranged 8/16; +15 vs. AC; 2d6 + 5 damage.
Alignment Chaotic evil Languages Giant
Skills Athletics +16
Str 21 (+11) Dex 8 (+5) Wis 12 (+7) Con 19 (+10) Int 7 (+4) Cha 9 (+5) Equipment hide armor, greatclub
Hill Giant Tactics
A hill giant hurls rocks at opponents until they close to melee range, at which point it switches to using its greatclub. As soon as two smaller targets come within reach, the giant uses sweeping club to knock them prone. A hill giant is wise enough to flee if hopelessly outmatched.
Earth Titan Level 16 Elite Brute
Huge elemental humanoid (earth, giant) XP 2,800
Initiative +7Senses Perception +9
HP 384; Bloodied 192
AC 31; Fortitude 33, Reflex 27, Will 28
Immune petrification
Saving Throws +2
Speed 6
Action Points 1
Slam (standard; at-will)
Reach 3; +20 vs. AC; 2d10 + 6 damage.
Double Attack (standard; at-will
The earth titan makes two slam attacks.
Hurl Rock (standard; at-will)
Ranged 20; +18 vs. Reflex; 2d8 + 6 damage, and the target is dazed (save ends).
Alignment Chaotic evil Languages Giant, Primordial
Skills Athletics +19
Str 23 (+14) Dex 8 (+7) Wis 12 (+9) Con 22 (+14) Int 11 (+8)
Cha 13 (+9)
Earth Titan Tactics
An earth titan hurls rocks at foes until they close to melee, at which point it pounds them with its stony fists, spending its action point to use earth shock. Unlike their hill giants cousins, earth titans stand their ground even when faced with a losing battle.
Earth Giant Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful Arcana check.
DC 20: Earth giants are the most brutish of giantkind. They inhabit badlands, deserts, and canyons, though lesser earth giants (such as hill giants) often gather in high mountain valleys and along mountain passes.
DC 25: Many of the dwarves who were enslaved by the earth giants were transformed as galeb duhrs. Some of them continue to serve earth giants, while others escaped and view giants (and earth giants in particular) as bitter enemies.
Encounter Groups
Earth giants associate with other giants, as well as with galeb duhrs and other monstrous and savage humanoids.
Level 13 Encounter (XP 4,000)
3 hill giants (level 13 brute)
1 displacer beast packlord (level 13 elite skirmisher)
Level 17 Encounter (XP 7,800)
1 earth titan (level 16 elite brute)
2 hill giants (level 13 brute)
2 war trolls (level 14 soldier)
4 ogre bludgeoneers (level 16 minion)
Cool... It seems that 4E giants/titans are based on Norse/Greek mithos.
The description of the "Earth Shock" ability is missing, though. If the final version is the same, it seems we already have two errates for the 4E MM (the other one is for the Succubus' Charming Kiss).
|
Add another "interesting..." to the list for this one. I like the back to basics approach tying the giants to the primordial titans. It simplifies the overall structure of the giant race yet expands upon their individual qualities. It will refreshing to see a fire giant not just be a big guy with flaming hair. :-)
I also like the ties into the Dwarven backstory and the relationship with some of the "evil" earth/depth races. This could provide some fun role-playing opportunities.
I like the new style of giants a lot, which might just be because I had a blast playing all three God of War games (greek story is just fine by me). I also like that since they are still Large, I can use my giant minis that I didnt sell thus far.
From what I read, dwarves dont get Dodge Giants or whatever from the start, you have to snag a feat later. This is good because you dont have to tie in some reason why dwarves hate giants in every campaign, or try to trade it out for something else. Of course, its also useful against anything Large, now.
The Earth Shock ability was included:
Earth Shock (standard; encounter)
Close burst 2; +18 vs. Fortitude; 2d10 + 6 damage, and the target is stunned until the end of the earth titan’s next turn. Miss: Half damage, and the target is not stunned.
Well I liked the preview of Giants and I like the Greek fluff that accompanies them (since I'm Greek). After orcs, giants seems to become my most beloved enemies (or allies since I will DM when September comes).
I really like everything I have seen on giants and titans so far, and I had not previously put them high on my list of cool creatures.
I've always loved giants, and I wished that something more had been done with titans and their relationship to giants, as was implied in the Forgotten Realms, and also in the ecology of the Titan from Dragon. That having been said, I'm not thrilled with this.
I probably wouldn't have worried about it, but I really do like D&D giants.
Hill giants and cloud giants are folk story giants, frost and fire are Norse, and stone giants came from Tolkien. I was quite surprised to see that the 4e design team though that, once again, people playing previous edition had no idea there was a difference between certain monsters.
Hill and stone are too similar? If they had said hill and mountain, I'll grant you that one, but hill and stone? Hill giants are evil, cruel, primitive brutes, and stone giants are bald, thoughtful, artistic, and reclusive. I don't get where there would be any confusion . . .
I'm also having a hard time with the elemental creatures in 4e. The design team has said that they need to differentiate between different races to make them different, but nearly every "elemental" creature has a similar look and origin so far.
Not to mention I'm kind of getting tired of the only "good" examples being 3.5 monsters that I have a strong suspicion were created by members of the 4e team ("hill and stone giants never worked right, but wow, look at the great eldritch giant and death giants . . . now THOSE are real giants")
Hill and stone are too similar? If they had said hill and mountain, I'll grant you that one, but hill and stone? Hill giants are evil, cruel, primitive brutes, and stone giants are bald, thoughtful, artistic, and reclusive. I don't get where there would be any confusion . . .
They specified the giant's abilities in combat. Frost and Fire giants had somewhat different abilities, but Hill giant and stone giants? Practically the same. Sure, the fluff was different, but stone giants, for all intents and purposes, functioned as slightly larger hill giants, which they considered to be a waste of space. In that regard, they are correct.
Oh yeah, forgot, everything exists to be killed.
Hill giants and cloud giants are folk story giants, frost and fire are Norse, and stone giants came from Tolkien. I was quite surprised to see that the 4e design team though that, once again, people playing previous edition had no idea there was a difference between certain monsters.
You're more than free to change the origins of your giants to whatever you want, not that prior editions of D&D followed real-world mythology when it came to giants.
Not that they are actually changing the appearance of giants that much. The fire giant still looks like the fire giant in 3E. Actually, the hill giant still looks the same, as well.
Mainly, they are changing the appearance of titans to conform more to greek standards.
Hill and stone are too similar? If they had said hill and mountain, I'll grant you that one, but hill and stone? Hill giants are evil, cruel, primitive brutes, and stone giants are bald, thoughtful, artistic, and reclusive. I don't get where there would be any confusion . . .
I dont think its a confusion in culture or basic appearance so much as combat utility: which is WHAT. THEY. SAID. Both types of giant are within one CR of eachother, two HD of eachother, and do basically the same thing: hit you with a big club, or throw rocks.
They are virtually identical, except that some stone giants can apparently cast a few spells that likely wont ever get used.
To clarify, its not a matter of confusion, its a matter of having a group of monsters that have potential for more interesting diversity, but acting virtually the same.
I'm also having a hard time with the elemental creatures in 4e. The design team has said that they need to differentiate between different races to make them different, but nearly every "elemental" creature has a similar look and origin so far.
Archons might have a similar appearance, insofar as they are armor-clad elemental-looking things, but they dont function the same way in combat. Fights between various archons are supposed to actually work and feel differently.
As for the similar origins? Well, they all come from the Elemental Chaos, so...
Not to mention I'm kind of getting tired of the only "good" examples being 3.5 monsters that I have a strong suspicion were created by members of the 4e team ("hill and stone giants never worked right, but wow, look at the great eldritch giant and death giants . . . now THOSE are real giants")
They didnt say that at all. They said that hill giants and stone giants do basically the same thing in combat, and that later Monster Manuals introduced other giants that didnt just hit you with a club or lob rocks at you, and rightfully labeled them as such.
They DO have their own schticks that make them more interesting than two monsters that have very close stat blocks.
Oh yeah, forgot, everything exists to be killed.
Ugh. D&D has a large combat element, and ALWAYS has. Care to explain why the designers making monsters more diverse in their abilities and tactics is a bad thing?
I didnt hear people complain when TSR rolled out the Monster Manuals way-back-when, chock full of "stuff to kill".
Okay, first, let me apologize. I did jump the gun and extrapolate the statement that giants weren't different enough "in combat." I get that, and I apologize for over generalizing the original statement.
However, I think that it might have been more logical if, to make their point, they had compared hill giants and stone giants, and how you could make them mechanically different in combat, rather than showing us a brand new monster and a hill giant.
Similarly, I'm having a hard time thinking that just because you name a special ability something different, but it still causes knockback and drops you prone, that the "brute" in question has completely different tactics.
I know better than to post in 4e threads, and I've been avoiding this because I know this isn't the direction I'm interested in, and I really didn't want to cause undue negativity to the whole discussion since I already know I'm not in on this one. I was just lured in by the whole issue of giants, since I've always liked them.
No, there isn't a problem with having more things to kill in D&D, and yes, D&D is combat oriented, but I also don't think that every monster has to be designed from the standpoint of why and how the PCs should be killing it. Its a subtle difference, but I think it exists.
And, while I'm trying to be civil, please, please don't dismiss me by making a comment like "ugh." And if I live another 100 years I'll be quite happy to never hear again, "if you don't like the backstory, you can change it." Its my opinion, I don't like the backstory, and I KNOW I can change it . . . but why buy a game where that has become a mantra?
Sorry I jumped the gun on the initial comment though. I still think that the article had a bit too much "earlier editions were cute, but backwards, we were much better in 3.5, but now we have made the ultimate game ever," hard sell, which to be honest, I felt they had gotten away from in recent articles (and I should have mentioned, because I appreciated it).
They specified the giant's abilities in combat. Frost and Fire giants had somewhat different abilities, but Hill giant and stone giants? Practically the same. Sure, the fluff was different, but stone giants, for all intents and purposes, functioned as slightly larger hill giants, which they considered to be a waste of space. In that regard, they are correct.
I disagree that even being similar they were a waste of space, but you make a good point and my reply was a bit too flippant. Sorry about that. I jumped the gun, and I appreciate that you spelled out the case very succinctly. Sorry about the reflexive post.
Well, the boards ate my first post, so here we go again...
Okay, first, let me apologize. I did jump the gun and extrapolate the statement that giants weren't different enough "in combat." I get that, and I apologize for over generalizing the original statement.
I'm sorry as well for my harsh tone. Too often people who dont like 4th Edition seem to exaggerate claims or find insults or negativity where their probably isnt. Kind of like what Mearls mentioned on that thread in Enworld.
However, I think that it might have been more logical if, to make their point, they had compared hill giants and stone giants, and how you could make them mechanically different in combat, rather than showing us a brand new monster and a hill giant.
I think they wanted to showcase the differences between a giant and its more elemental titan cousin. Of course, stone giants might not make the cut in the first Monster Manual. If they are, I suspect they will have a stronger emphasis on stoneshaping powers.
Basically, I think they can take the culture and style of stone giants and work with it, without diluting them in any way.
Similarly, I'm having a hard time thinking that just because you name a special ability something different, but it still causes knockback and drops you prone, that the "brute" in question has completely different tactics.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think that the giant and titan have similar stat blocks because giants are basically less-powerful titans. Both get a strong melee and ranged attack, but their special attacks function differently.
A giant can to a swinging attack that hits multiple enemies and can knock them prone, while a titan can pummel one guy pretty hard. The titan can also use a localized earthquake to hit everyone around it.
I dont expect the designers to make a diverse array of attacks for big monsters that knock you around. As it stands, there is more to the giant and titan featured than the hill and stone giant.
No, there isn't a problem with having more things to kill in D&D, and yes, D&D is combat oriented, but I also don't think that every monster has to be designed from the standpoint of why and how the PCs should be killing it. Its a subtle difference, but I think it exists.
I think the idea is that they want players to feel like they are fighting something else besides the same monster with another name attached. 3rd Edition elementals are guilty of being extremely similar, for example.
I think that since D&D is so action heavy that monster-fun should be a high priority, and I dont think thats really a stance that has changed throughout the course of D&D.
And, while I'm trying to be civil, please, please don't dismiss me by making a comment like "ugh." And if I live another 100 years I'll be quite happy to never hear again, "if you don't like the backstory, you can change it." Its my opinion, I don't like the backstory, and I KNOW I can change it . . . but why buy a game where that has become a mantra?
I had more to say here, but basically D&D is a sandbox RPG. Part of its appeal to me is creating your own world to run your own stuff, meaning that more often than not, people are going to ignore the story stuff on monsters where it might exist.
Really, I tend to ignore anyone griping about monster origins and story material in general, since people using published campaign settings are already ignoring it, and even original campaign settings ignore some or all of it as well (this is why I dont care that some people dont like the new implied cosmology: make your own!).
I'd more readily accept someone angry about the direction Forgotten Realms went, since its basically a story thing.
Sorry I jumped the gun on the initial comment though. I still think that the article had a bit too much "earlier editions were cute, but backwards, we were much better in 3.5, but now we have made the ultimate game ever," hard sell, which to be honest, I felt they had gotten away from in recent articles (and I should have mentioned, because I appreciated it).
I didnt really get that vibe at all from the article. Mainly it sounded like they were just addressing what they thought was a problem (two monsters that are statistically identical) and wanted to make them stand out more.
|
I didnt really get that vibe at all from the article. Mainly it sounded like they were just addressing what they thought was a problem (two monsters that are statistically identical) and wanted to make them stand out more.
So correct me if I am wrong, but I got the impression that they way they made stone giants stand out more was by eliminating them entirely from the game.
Or are there still going to be stone giants?
I dont think they are removing them entirely. They might not be in the first Monster Manual, I have no idea or information regarding that.
I know they said something to the effect that frost giants would be purposely put in MM2 to avoid the mentality that only the first three books are core: they want to emphasize that ALL of the books are core, now.
I disagree that even being similar they were a waste of space, but you make a good point and my reply was a bit too flippant. Sorry about that. I jumped the gun, and I appreciate that you spelled out the case very succinctly. Sorry about the reflexive post.
They specified the giant's abilities in combat. Frost and Fire giants had somewhat different abilities, but Hill giant and stone giants? Practically the same. Sure, the fluff was different, but stone giants, for all intents and purposes, functioned as slightly larger hill giants, which they considered to be a waste of space. In that regard, they are correct.
No need to be apologetic. You raise an issue that I've had with practically every edition, with the exception of 2e, of all things. One of the best things about 2e was that they made a point to discuss the ecology/society of every monster, which gave each one a personality it had never had before. The coolness of the beholder and the mind flayer come from 2e, not 1e.
Of course, you have to couple the cool ecology with one of 2e's worst aspects at its inception- the hideous monster art. **shudder** Hopefully 4e gets it right.
Hmm, I can not see much mechanical difference between the Hill Giant and the Earth Titan. One is stronger than the other. But then?
Where is the difference to 3.5 Hill and Stone Giants in "cool" mechanics?
Again, the earth titan is a larger, more elemental version of the hill giant. How different were you expecting them to be? They both have a strong melee and ranged attack, but the giant has an attack that can knock people down. On the other hand, the titan can just slam the crap out of someone, and also has an AoE burst attack.
It might not be much variance in the attacks, but its still more than what you got out of 3rd Edition.Going on to stone giants. Who can say? I think they might be a little tougher (level 14 monsters), but also have some stone-shaping abilities: some stone giants are "elders", and some of those guys are sorcerers. Of course, those might be two different stone giant monsters (a brute and a controller).
Maybe Wizards will just scrap the idea and remove stone giants from the picture. After all, the only difference was a slight power curve, so you could always just use the hill giant block and make them look different.
However, since both giants have different cultures, I dont think that will be the case. I wont be heartbroken if they do, mind you, but I have faith that they got something in the works. Of course, they could just make stone giants one level higher and keep them like hill giants, in which case we arent any worse off than in 3rd Edition, except that they will STILL have more to do than hit you with a stick or rock.
|
Again, the earth titan is a larger, more elemental version of the hill giant. How different were you expecting them to be? They both have a strong melee and ranged attack, but the giant has an attack that can knock people down. On the other hand, the titan can just slam the crap out of someone, and also has an AoE burst attack.
It might not be much variance in the attacks, but its still more than what you got out of 3rd Edition.Going on to stone giants. Who can say? I think they might be a little tougher (level 14 monsters), but also have some stone-shaping abilities: some stone giants are "elders", and some of those guys are sorcerers. Of course, those might be two different stone giant monsters (a brute and a controller).
Maybe Wizards will just scrap the idea and remove stone giants from the picture. After all, the only difference was a slight power curve, so you could always just use the hill giant block and make them look different.However, since both giants have different cultures, I dont think that will be the case. I wont be heartbroken if they do, mind you, but I have faith that they got something in the works. Of course, they could just make stone giants one level higher and keep them like hill giants, in which case we arent any worse off than in 3rd Edition, except that they will STILL have more to do than hit you with a stick or rock.
To be honest, I overlooked the "Earth Shook" ability.
But, in defense of 3rd edition:
- Hill Giants are proficient with simple and martial weapons and light and medium armor. So they have quite a range of weapons they can use.
- They have Imp. Bull Rush and Sunder and having natural Reach they can grapple or trip most creatures without fear of AoO.
So even the MM Hill Giant has more to do that hit with a Stick if you are a littl be creative as a DM.
|
|
I think the thing that people are missing is not that you can't do things in 3rd edition that you can do in 4th.
I was referring to Antioch's post in my answer. He stated that a 3.5 Giant can only use a stick or rock to attack.
It just takes more work. It takes time I don't have.
I'd love to stat up a 9th level stone giant dread necromancer lich and his minions. I don't have an hour to do it. I have an hour to come up with a cool evil plot for them, but statting these guys up is like 7th grade math homework (to me).
I realize that some people love statting up awesome monsters, and I'd love to find out who those people are and pay them to create books of statted encounters.
Fair enough, it takes a some time to stat out an unusual suspect.
But switching Greatclub to Huge Greataxe and letting the Hill Giant use Trip and Bullrush can be done on the fly.