Does anyone know the rationale behind giants all being Humanoid? I was just flicking through Bestiary 3 and the 'Cyclops, Great' struck me as at least as monstrous as some of the other monstrous humanoids, but it is still humanoid.
I'm sure this has been explained somewhere, but my search-fu has failed me.
Labelling giants as humanoids is one of the few balls Paizo dropped when designing Pathfinder RPG.
I'd say that it's because other than being really big, they're not particularly monstrous.
Labelling giants as humanoids is one of the few balls Paizo dropped when designing Pathfinder RPG.
What makes you say this?
Labelling giants as humanoids is one of the few balls Paizo dropped when designing Pathfinder RPG.What makes you say this?
This makes giants, unlike any other monsters of equivalent CR, vulnerable to low-level spells like charm person and hold person. For some reason it's now easier to paralyze an ettin (CR 6) than, let's say, a centaur (CR 3).
I guess it's not all bad, since it makes Enchanters less useless during the higher levels, but it really makes giants not worth their CR against low-level casters.
|
Well now that Hill Giant Vampires are a much easier to create monster the changes are pretty nice. So far in our group we haven't noticed a huge difference in the classification change, though we've been aware of it for a while. Personally I was rather happy to see that as they never really came off as anything mystical, just big humanoids.
From what I can tell, all that happened was that giants were turned from Giant to humanoid when they did away with giant as a type. Giant type in 3.5 was basically identical to Humanoid (d8, 3/4BAB, one good save, 2+int skill points).
So, did Pathfinder change Giants or did they keep them the same? They kept them the same but eliminated an unneeded major distinction between Giant and Humanoid and placed giant into a subtype.
However, placing them as humanoid has altered what will affect them spellwise. I do not see a problem with this as I have always thought 3.5 giants were kinda screwy since they are just overgrown humanoids and yet they are immune to anything that is humanoid only. Now that is no longer the case is all.
- Gauss
Labelling giants as humanoids is one of the few balls Paizo dropped when designing Pathfinder RPG.What makes you say this?This makes giants, unlike any other monsters of equivalent CR, vulnerable to low-level spells like charm person and hold person. For some reason it's now easier to paralyze an ettin (CR 6) than, let's say, a centaur (CR 3).
I guess it's not all bad, since it makes Enchanters less useless during the higher levels, but it really makes giants not worth their CR against low-level casters.
They still have saving throws. Bad saving throw progression for that sort of thing, but a lot of hit dice to progress that saving throw and give them some chance.
I find the change good for two reasons: First, like you said, it gives enchanters one more thing to do with all those person-only spells in a monster-oriented game. Second, it simply makes more sense that if a lizard man with scales and a tail is susceptible to person-only spells, a really big but arguably more human-shaped giant ought to be as well.
|
From what I can tell, all that happened was that giants were turned from Giant to humanoid when they did away with giant as a type. Giant type in 3.5 was basically identical to Humanoid (d8, 3/4BAB, one good save, 2+int skill points).
So, did Pathfinder change Giants or did they keep them the same? They kept them the same but eliminated an unneeded major distinction between Giant and Humanoid and placed giant into a subtype.
However, placing them as humanoid has altered what will affect them spellwise. I do not see a problem with this as I have always thought 3.5 giants were kinda screwy since they are just overgrown humanoids and yet they are immune to anything that is humanoid only. Now that is no longer the case is all.
- Gauss
On the other hand, making them monstrous humanoids would have given them a boost to their BAB, which could have been a nasty surprise for some poor party of adventurers.
In my opinion trolls, at least, seem more like monstrous humanoids than they do humanoids.
However, I think people's complaints are more to do with hit dice than with giants as such; maybe a better approach would be to put a hit dice cap on hold person and (maybe) charm person rather than have them only affect humanoids, but affect all humanoids?
Giant (as in Sword of Giant slaying or +4 Ac against giants) is a classic in D&D so there should be an easy way to identify Giants as a race.
I would have liked it better if giant were a subtype that could be applied to both humanoids and monstrous humanoids.
Then you could have your humanoid hill giants and your monstrous humanoid trolls.
I mean the poor humbaba from Bestiary 3 doesn't get to be classified as a giant. This creature, who is obviously a giant by any fantasy definition, doesn't make the cut as a humanoid so doesn't get the giant subtype. Poor humbaba.
Humbaba, from PRD entry
Humbaba
This towering, horned, lion-faced giant has long, braided hair and is outfitted in various pieces of plate armor.Humbaba CR 19
XP 204,800
CN Colossal monstrous humanoidHumbabas are monstrous humanoids of tremendous size and power that prowl the forgotten places of the world. Although a humbaba has the body of a powerful, muscular human, its face is a twisted mockery that seems more leonine than human. They often braid portions of their manes or otherwise decorate them with skulls and weapons, and prefer to wear half-plate armor and fight with longswords.
The first humbabas were once the favored minions of the demon lord Pazuzu. In those days, humbabas had magnificent birdlike wings. But when the mightiest of the humbabas dared to attack Pazuzu in an ill-conceived attempt to claim the demon lord's throne, Pazuzu punished the entire humbaba race by stripping them of their wings and casting them into the Material Plane. There they now dwell, forever denied the skies and cursed to live lonely lives, incapable of forming even the barest of friendships or alliances with others of their kind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually wish "humanoid" had been applied to even more races, like tieflings and aasimar.
No one is stopping you from doing so. In fact, treating Aasimar, Tieflings and the elemental-touched races as humanoid (planetouched) rather than outsider (native) eliminates a couple logical inconsistencies when it comes to magical effects (say hello to disguise self, hideous laughter, antilife shell and a few others), and has been a house rule with all our GMs since we started playing PF.
I would have liked it better if giant were a subtype that could be applied to both humanoids and monstrous humanoids.Er, what's stopping you?
Nothing is stopping me, but I'm talking about RAW.
I don't use giants very much myself* so it's more of a matter of discussion and interpretation, like the Oxford comma. It's not wrong to do it either way, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to see it codified in the way that matches my preference.
Honestly I'm not terribly hung-up about the distinction between humanoids and monstrous humanoids, but I do feel that poor humbaba gets left out of being a certified giant.
*The next "giant" I'm likely to use is actually going to be an apocalypse zombie ogre, so it will have the Undead type.
The line between humanoids and monstrous humanoids is fuzzy at best.
And that's not the only fuzzy type line. Driders are too messed up to be monstrous humanoids so get bumped to aberrations, but the scorpion version of the same thing in Bestiary 3 (Girtablilu) is monstrous humanoid. Which seems somewhat inconsistent and stretching the definition of monstrous humanoid to breaking point.
The line between humanoids and monstrous humanoids is fuzzy at best.
I think this is exactly the heart of the problem. The differences are extremely arbitrary. Why are gnolls humanoids rather than monstrous humanoids, when their anatomy is similar to that of minotaurs, who are monstrous humanoids? There's the kobold thing, as well.
Monstrous humanoid should be more strictly defined than it currently is.
Another thing I've often wondered about- why do humanoids have a subtype, and monstrous humanoids don't? Should (monstrous) be a humanoid subtype?
There are quite a few humanoids who seem to fit the animalistic thing, and several that are considerably more monstrous than many of the actual monstrous humanoids (some of the types of troll, for instance).
The distinction is so arbitrary at this point as to seem almost a waste of time, perhaps there should just be a monstrous subtype for humanoids. Though I can see that bringing a whole new raft of problems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of things are pretty much arbitrary. A snake with a woman's head is a naga which is an aberration. If you have a woman who's a snake from the waist down, she's a lamia matriarch, who's a magical beast, unless she has eight arms, in which case she's a maralith who's a demonic outsider. If you've got an otherwise normal human with snakes in place of her hair, she's a medusa, who's a monstrous humanoid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This makes giants, unlike any other monsters of equivalent CR, vulnerable to low-level spells like charm person and hold person. For some reason it's now easier to paralyze an ettin (CR 6) than, let's say, a centaur (CR 3).I guess it's not all bad, since it makes Enchanters less useless during the higher levels, but it really makes giants not worth their CR against low-level casters.
I'm cool with that. Folklore giants were supposed to be dim-witted.
I actually wish "humanoid" had been applied to even more races, like tieflings and aasimar.No one is stopping you from doing so. In fact, treating Aasimar, Tieflings and the elemental-touched races as humanoid (planetouched) rather than outsider (native) eliminates a couple logical inconsistencies when it comes to magical effects (say hello to disguise self, hideous laughter, antilife shell and a few others), and has been a house rule with all our GMs since we started playing PF.
I don't know if I should be happy ("great mind think alike?") or if I should be worried ("damn mind-readers! again!"). Even the subtype matches...
This makes giants, unlike any other monsters of equivalent CR, vulnerable to low-level spells like charm person and hold person. For some reason it's now easier to paralyze an ettin (CR 6) than, let's say, a centaur (CR 3).I guess it's not all bad, since it makes Enchanters less useless during the higher levels, but it really makes giants not worth their CR against low-level casters.
I'm cool with that. Folklore giants were supposed to be dim-witted.
And they have bad will saves to reflect that. No need to also make them vulnerable to spells that can't affect every other non-humanoid monsters of the same CRs.
And they have bad will saves to reflect that. No need to also make them vulnerable to spells that can't affect every other non-humanoid monsters of the same CRs.
This makes giants, unlike any other monsters of equivalent CR, vulnerable to low-level spells like charm person and hold person. For some reason it's now easier to paralyze an ettin (CR 6) than, let's say, a centaur (CR 3).I guess it's not all bad, since it makes Enchanters less useless during the higher levels, but it really makes giants not worth their CR against low-level casters.
I'm cool with that. Folklore giants were supposed to be dim-witted.
Why not? They're clearly humanoids; they're just really big. They're still better off than a human fighter of that CR by virtue of having more hit dice (and, thus, a higher base Will save and more feats).
Why not? They're clearly humanoids; they're just really big. They're still better off than a human fighter of that CR by virtue of having more hit dice (and, thus, a higher base Will save and more feats).And they have bad will saves to reflect that. No need to also make them vulnerable to spells that can't affect every other non-humanoid monsters of the same CRs.
This makes giants, unlike any other monsters of equivalent CR, vulnerable to low-level spells like charm person and hold person. For some reason it's now easier to paralyze an ettin (CR 6) than, let's say, a centaur (CR 3).I guess it's not all bad, since it makes Enchanters less useless during the higher levels, but it really makes giants not worth their CR against low-level casters.
I'm cool with that. Folklore giants were supposed to be dim-witted.
Fluff-wise it does make sense* and I can't disagree with that, but mechanic-wise, it makes what are supposed to be tough monsters into a little nuisance that can be discarded with a first or second level spell. Unlike what you said, a CR7 medium-sized humanoid fighter will probably have a better will save than a CR7 hill giant, because he will have more spare feats to take Iron Will (a hill giant has only 5 feats), and also because he will have a better equipment (maybe he owns a cloak of resistance +1 or something).
Now this is something I can live with (and I hope so), but it's just not to my taste.
* = Unless giants, in your setting, are all part of an ancient races with an alien mind that ruled the world before the rise of smaller humanoid races.
|
I actually wish "humanoid" had been applied to even more races, like tieflings and aasimar.No one is stopping you from doing so. In fact, treating Aasimar, Tieflings and the elemental-touched races as humanoid (planetouched) rather than outsider (native) eliminates a couple logical inconsistencies when it comes to magical effects (say hello to disguise self, hideous laughter, antilife shell and a few others), and has been a house rule with all our GMs since we started playing PF.
That's actually what I do, and for many of the same reasons. It just bugs me that that decision made back in 3.0 is still hounding tiefs and aasimar as written.
Planescape fan rage. ;)
It also really helps with selling those races to groups who might otherwise be worried about the difference in power level. Depending on the group, that change can make a huge difference in outlook!
That's actually what I do, and for many of the same reasons. It just bugs me that that decision made back in 3.0 is still hounding tiefs and aasimar as written.
The problem lies in that 3.0 very poorly defined Outsider type (e.g. anything extraplanar and their dogs were given Outsider type... Except elementals). 3.5 introduced extraplanar subtype that should solve the problem but some creatures instead of being given different type, more matching their established description (aasimars, tieflings, but also giths, whos description was closer to extraplanar humanoids and not naturally immortal entities whose spirit and flesh is the same, lacking the mortal duality) were kept as Outsiders and changed to match that type closer instead.