Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[PF] Ogres & Hill Giants both being Large...
149 views
Skip to first unread message
Tetsubo
Jul 27, 2012, 1:10:50 PM7/27/12
to
I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a *Giant*
should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem strange to
anyone else?
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a *Giant*
should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem strange to
anyone else?
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Alcore
Jul 27, 2012, 2:37:09 PM7/27/12
to
On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:10:50 PM UTC-5, Tetsubo wrote:
> I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
> issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a
> *Giant* should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem
> strange to anyone else?
I am one of those simulationists at heart, and I have always found
> I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
> issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a
> *Giant* should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem
> strange to anyone else?
the size category system to lack adequate resolution.
Starting from the smaller end of Gnomes, and ranging up through the
largest and most athletically overbuilt humans/half-orcs, I really
do think there's room for at least 5 distinct size categories...
Even if you let the undersize gnomes slip down one standard category
from small to ?tiny? and you let those overbuilt linebacker half-orcs
move up to large, I still think you're missing a lot of range of
difference. Certainly more than just "small" and "medium" capture.
Unfortunately there are practical matters to deal with. At some
point you are drowning in details. So I just deal with 140lb 5'2"
young human wizards being in the same size category with 290 lb 6'5"
half-orcs.
The same applies to your Ogre/Hill Giant question. As a DM, when
I'm building monsters, I often don't use them at their "base" level.
With Hill Giants, with even modest promotion, I usually give them a
boost by one size category. This shift in size is something that I
would not consider giving to any but the most ancient and powerful
of Ogres. Youthful Ogres, however, sometimes get shifted DOWN a
size category, becoming almost indistinguishable from half-orcs.
Hill Giants are the entry point for Giants. They just get bigger
from there. So I'm ok with the smallest of them being only large.
That's still going to be 7 to 8 feet tall and nearly 500 lbs.
Tetsubo
Jul 27, 2012, 4:33:15 PM7/27/12
to
12'. Heck, 7' or 8' is still in the Medium range.
Harold Groot
Jul 27, 2012, 7:41:35 PM7/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:10:50 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
>issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a *Giant*
>should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem strange to
>anyone else?
>Tetsubo
It's been that way pretty much from the beginning. AD&D 1E Monster
Manual shows Ogres at 9' and Hill Giants at 10-1/2' (with other giants
getting bigger and bigger). Of course, all of them were simply called
"Large" because AD&D only had the one category for "bigger than
human-sized".
In D&D 3E we find a whole slew of larger-than-man size categories.
Ogres are Large and "9 to 10 feet tall". Hill Giants are also Large
at "10-1/2 feet tall". Fire Giants and Stone Giants are Large at 12
feet tall", and Frost Giants are still just Large at 15' tall. Cloud
Giants at Huge at 18' tall, Storm Giants are Huge at 21' tall. PF is
just following a long gaming (though not necessarily literature)
tradition.
If there are just gradual changes in height (as we have here), then
whichever 2 are on opposite sides of a dividing line might seem
somewhat arbitrary. But you have to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe you have some animated cartoons in mind, where almost all
"Giants" are shown as large enough to fit an entire person inside
their fist. You may have a mental picture that anything with the
lable "Giant" ought to be so much bigger than man-sized that there is
this huge gap between Giants and anything else. So maybe you would
prefer that things were called Ogres at 9', with Hill, Fire, Stone and
Frost Ogres ranging up to 15' - and then Cloud Giants starting at 40'
and Storm Giants at 60'. D&D/PF didn't take that path, and it's never
bothered me.
wrote:
> I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
>issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a *Giant*
>should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem strange to
>anyone else?
It's been that way pretty much from the beginning. AD&D 1E Monster
Manual shows Ogres at 9' and Hill Giants at 10-1/2' (with other giants
getting bigger and bigger). Of course, all of them were simply called
"Large" because AD&D only had the one category for "bigger than
human-sized".
In D&D 3E we find a whole slew of larger-than-man size categories.
Ogres are Large and "9 to 10 feet tall". Hill Giants are also Large
at "10-1/2 feet tall". Fire Giants and Stone Giants are Large at 12
feet tall", and Frost Giants are still just Large at 15' tall. Cloud
Giants at Huge at 18' tall, Storm Giants are Huge at 21' tall. PF is
just following a long gaming (though not necessarily literature)
tradition.
If there are just gradual changes in height (as we have here), then
whichever 2 are on opposite sides of a dividing line might seem
somewhat arbitrary. But you have to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe you have some animated cartoons in mind, where almost all
"Giants" are shown as large enough to fit an entire person inside
their fist. You may have a mental picture that anything with the
lable "Giant" ought to be so much bigger than man-sized that there is
this huge gap between Giants and anything else. So maybe you would
prefer that things were called Ogres at 9', with Hill, Fire, Stone and
Frost Ogres ranging up to 15' - and then Cloud Giants starting at 40'
and Storm Giants at 60'. D&D/PF didn't take that path, and it's never
bothered me.
tussock
Jul 28, 2012, 12:40:35 AM7/28/12
to
Tetsubo wrote:
> I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
> issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a *Giant*
> should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem strange to
> anyone else?
Yes, and I did fix it at one point specifically so the Ogre fell on one
> I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
> issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a *Giant*
> should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem strange to
> anyone else?
side of a line and the Hill Giant on the other, but it doesn't matter or
anything.
Incidently, 3e Giants all appear to be statted (Str, HD, AC, etc) like
they're all Huge 2nd edition versions, but then someone took their height
back to 1e standards late in development without changing anything else.
Ogre (4 HD) H.Gi (...)
1e - 9', ? - 10', ? (8 HD).
2e - 9', 325lb - 16', 4500lb (12 HD).
3e - 9', 650lb - 10', 1100lb (12 HD).
PF - 10', 650lb - 10', 1100lb (10 HD).
Now 2nd edition Ogres and Hill Giants are /really/ different, twice the
height and well over ten times heavier. 1e and 3e are much closer though,
even with their murderously strong Giants they're only twice the weight.
I like to think of 3e Ogres as dumb 1st level Warriors, and Giants as
elite 6th level Fighters, both large, but the true giants are good at it.
4e "large" (L 8) "large" (L 13).
Behold the detail, amaze yourself with the depth of .... Pthhh.
--
tussock
Keith Davies
Jul 29, 2012, 2:52:49 PM7/29/12
to
Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:10:50 PM UTC-5, Tetsubo wrote:
>> I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
>> issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a
>> *Giant* should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem
>> strange to anyone else?
>
> I am one of those simulationists at heart, and I have always found
> the size category system to lack adequate resolution.
Without digging into the history of things too deeply, I considered but
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:10:50 PM UTC-5, Tetsubo wrote:
>> I find it odd that both Ogres and Hill Giants are Large. I have no
>> issue with Ogres being large, makes perfect sense to me. But a
>> *Giant* should be bigger than an Ogre in my book. Does this seem
>> strange to anyone else?
>
> I am one of those simulationists at heart, and I have always found
> the size category system to lack adequate resolution.
never finished something like the following:
Given that in D&D 3.x, each step up or down increase or descreases
average base size by a factor of two. Large creatures are on average
about twice the height (and eight times the weight) of Medium creatures,
sort of thing.
Instead, let's give each size category three steps. For reasons that
will become apparent, let's make 'average Medium' about six feet tall,
160 pounds and 'size 0'. This can be recalibrated if needed (he's kind
of skinny, really).
It so happens that 1.25 is acceptably close (to me) to being the cube
root of 2. Stepping up to size +1 means you might have someone who is
1.25 times as tall as someone size 0, and about twice as heavy, or in
this case about 7'6", 320 pounds. This seems fairly believable. For
simplicity, we might consider really big half-orcs and orcs, and
smallish ogres, to be in this range. And some humans.
A step down might be about 4'10", 80 pounds. Again, pretty believable.
You might find elves, half-elves, and some humans in this range.
D&D dwarves are probably usually size 0 -- they're short, but their
weight and strength characteristics are more in line with normal-sized
humans. Different settings and mythologies may change that.
A step below that, size -2, is where you start to find halflings. About
72/1.25/1.25 inches tall, which is to say around 3'10", and about 40
pounds. Gnomes might be a step below that, at about 37" - 3'1" - and 20
pounds. Still 'Small' in D&D 3.x terms.
Going back up, size +2 is about 112" tall, 9'8", and about 640 pounds.
Ogre territory, certainly.
If giants tend to be about one step per relative CR (hill < stone <
frost < fire < cloud < storm) you end up with something like (because
I'm just estimating)
ogre : size +2, 9'8", 640#
hill : size +3, 12' , 1,280#
stone: size +4, 15' , 2,560#
frost: size +5, 18'6", 5,120#
fire : size +6, 23' , 10,240#
cloud: size +7, 29' , 20,480#
storm: size +8, 38' , 40,960#
However, I notice something curious here that might interest Tetsubo and
fit even closer to what he has in mind: ogres are CR 3, and I have them
at size +2. What happens if we instead make giant size the same as
their CRs as published?
... something that looks pretty silly to me, actually:
ogre CR 3 height 11'9" weight 1,280#
hill CR 7 height 28'7" weight 10 tons
stone CR 8 height 35'9" weight 20 tons
frost CR 9 height 44'8" weight 41 tons
fire CR 10 height 55'11" weight 82 tons
cloud CR 11 height 69'10" weight 164 tons
storm CR 13 height 109'2" weight 655 tons
Mind you, it might only be silly because of that annoying cube-square
thing we have. An ogre taller than a house and a hill giant tall as a
three-story tower might be spot on.
> Starting from the smaller end of Gnomes, and ranging up through the
> largest and most athletically overbuilt humans/half-orcs, I really
> do think there's room for at least 5 distinct size categories...
steps below average humans, overbuilt humans and half-orcs are about one
step above.
> Even if you let the undersize gnomes slip down one standard category
> move up to large, I still think you're missing a lot of range of
> difference. Certainly more than just "small" and "medium" capture.
>
> Unfortunately there are practical matters to deal with. At some
> point you are drowning in details. So I just deal with 140lb 5'2"
> young human wizards being in the same size category with 290 lb 6'5"
> half-orcs.
Indeed. In the end I pretty much abandoned this, not because it was too
> difference. Certainly more than just "small" and "medium" capture.
>
> Unfortunately there are practical matters to deal with. At some
> point you are drowning in details. So I just deal with 140lb 5'2"
> young human wizards being in the same size category with 290 lb 6'5"
> half-orcs.
hard to do, but because I frankly no longer cared.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "chain letter and chain mail...
keith....@kjdavies.org not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org
Tetsubo
Jul 29, 2012, 3:03:54 PM7/29/12
to
think I agree that it does seem to get overly complex. Perhaps I should
just deal with the rather abstract nature of the system.
Nicole Massey
Jul 29, 2012, 5:24:14 PM7/29/12
to
density too. For example, Dwarves in literature and in some variants of the
game are more dense. They can't swim because they sink, and they're heavier,
which has a bit to do with their bump in constitution. The same applies to
dealing with elementals of different types.
tussock
Jul 30, 2012, 1:55:42 AM7/30/12
to
Keith Davies wrote:
<snip>
with impressive strength as well, roughly by the square of length IRL.
<edited table>
> ogre CR 3 height 9' weight 450# lift 280#
> troll CR 4+1 height 10' weight 630# lift 350#
> hill CR 7 height 14' weight 1800# lift 700#
> stone CR 8 height 16' weight 2500# lift 900#
> frost CR 9 height 18' weight 3500# lift 1100#
> fire CR 10 height 20' weight 5000# lift 1400#
> cloud CR 11 height 22' weight 7000# lift 1800#
> storm CR 12+1 height 25' weight 10000# lift 2200#
Only the stone giants are skinny, the fire giants short and rotund, and
so on. Given that it's pretty much where 2nd edition put them, maybe closer
if you use HD rather than CR.
> Mind you, it might only be silly because of that annoying cube-square
> thing we have. An ogre taller than a house and a hill giant tall as a
> three-story tower might be spot on.
Nah. Grizzly Bears are 6 HD and they're only 500lb. males. A 4 HD Ogre
just can't be too big, nor can a 12 HD Giant. Even a T-Rex only weighs
around 6 tonne for his classic 20 HD.
> T-Rex CR 13 height 28' weight 14000# lift 2800#
Can stagger around with another T-Rex on it's back for a few seconds
before collapsing. Cool. Only not really, because IRL you have to lift
yourself aswell, but good for a D&D treatment.
Though our dear friend the 40 tonne, 16m Sperm Whale bull makes them all
look a bit sad, even if he is the biggest predator ever by a very large
margin. Orca only around 6 tonne, 7m by comparison, stubby wee guy.
> Orca CR 12 height 25' weight 10000# lift 2200#
> Sperm-F CR 15 height 36' weight 28000# lift 4400#
> Sperm-M CR 18 height 50' weight 80000# lift 8800#
And if you want dragons to top out at CR 27 like 3e does.
> GWGD CR 24+3 height 100' weight 300 ton lift 16 ton
--
tussock
<snip>
> However, I notice something curious here that might interest Tetsubo and
> fit even closer to what he has in mind: ogres are CR 3, and I have them
> at size +2. What happens if we instead make giant size the same as
> their CRs as published?
Half their CR would work better for D&D traditions. That height comes
> fit even closer to what he has in mind: ogres are CR 3, and I have them
> at size +2. What happens if we instead make giant size the same as
> their CRs as published?
with impressive strength as well, roughly by the square of length IRL.
<edited table>
> ogre CR 3 height 9' weight 450# lift 280#
> troll CR 4+1 height 10' weight 630# lift 350#
> hill CR 7 height 14' weight 1800# lift 700#
> stone CR 8 height 16' weight 2500# lift 900#
> frost CR 9 height 18' weight 3500# lift 1100#
> fire CR 10 height 20' weight 5000# lift 1400#
> cloud CR 11 height 22' weight 7000# lift 1800#
> storm CR 12+1 height 25' weight 10000# lift 2200#
Only the stone giants are skinny, the fire giants short and rotund, and
so on. Given that it's pretty much where 2nd edition put them, maybe closer
if you use HD rather than CR.
> Mind you, it might only be silly because of that annoying cube-square
> thing we have. An ogre taller than a house and a hill giant tall as a
> three-story tower might be spot on.
just can't be too big, nor can a 12 HD Giant. Even a T-Rex only weighs
around 6 tonne for his classic 20 HD.
> T-Rex CR 13 height 28' weight 14000# lift 2800#
Can stagger around with another T-Rex on it's back for a few seconds
before collapsing. Cool. Only not really, because IRL you have to lift
yourself aswell, but good for a D&D treatment.
Though our dear friend the 40 tonne, 16m Sperm Whale bull makes them all
look a bit sad, even if he is the biggest predator ever by a very large
margin. Orca only around 6 tonne, 7m by comparison, stubby wee guy.
> Orca CR 12 height 25' weight 10000# lift 2200#
> Sperm-F CR 15 height 36' weight 28000# lift 4400#
> Sperm-M CR 18 height 50' weight 80000# lift 8800#
And if you want dragons to top out at CR 27 like 3e does.
> GWGD CR 24+3 height 100' weight 300 ton lift 16 ton
--
tussock
Keith Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 3:49:42 PM7/31/12
to
tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
><snip>
>> However, I notice something curious here that might interest Tetsubo and
>> fit even closer to what he has in mind: ogres are CR 3, and I have them
>> at size +2. What happens if we instead make giant size the same as
>> their CRs as published?
>
> Half their CR would work better for D&D traditions. That height comes
> with impressive strength as well, roughly by the square of length IRL.
I didn't want to muddy things by getting too much into the _effects_ of
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
><snip>
>> However, I notice something curious here that might interest Tetsubo and
>> fit even closer to what he has in mind: ogres are CR 3, and I have them
>> at size +2. What happens if we instead make giant size the same as
>> their CRs as published?
>
> Half their CR would work better for D&D traditions. That height comes
> with impressive strength as well, roughly by the square of length IRL.
changes in size.
><edited table>
>> ogre CR 3 height 9' weight 450# lift 280#
>> troll CR 4+1 height 10' weight 630# lift 350#
>> hill CR 7 height 14' weight 1800# lift 700#
>> stone CR 8 height 16' weight 2500# lift 900#
>> frost CR 9 height 18' weight 3500# lift 1100#
>> fire CR 10 height 20' weight 5000# lift 1400#
>> cloud CR 11 height 22' weight 7000# lift 1800#
>> storm CR 12+1 height 25' weight 10000# lift 2200#
>
> Only the stone giants are skinny, the fire giants short and rotund, and
> so on. Given that it's pretty much where 2nd edition put them, maybe closer
> if you use HD rather than CR.
decided to see what happened.
I agree that half CR -- mostly for the cases where the CR comes from
size rather than things like regeneration -- would be a better fit for
D&D 3.x. Let's see what happens with stepping them down a little.
Giant D&D CR Half CR D&D Height/Weight New Height/Weight
Ogre 3 1.5 9.5'/625# 8.5'/450#
Hill 7 3.5 10.5'/1100# 12'/1800#
Stone 8 4 12'/1500# 14.5'/2600#
Frost 9 4.5 15'/2800# 16.5'/3600#
Fire 10 5 12'/7000# 18'/5100#
Cloud 11 5.5 18'/5000# 20.5'/7200#
Storm 13 6.5 21'/12000# 25.5'/14500#
Much closer to being in line with the D&D 3.x heights and weights than
using straight CR as size. Fire giants are clearly out of line, but
they are described as being more dwarf-shaped than human-shaped.
I do notice that the sizes and weights are generally fairly close to my
assumptions of 72"/160# scaled up, at least where the heights are close
to matching up.
>> Mind you, it might only be silly because of that annoying cube-square
>> thing we have. An ogre taller than a house and a hill giant tall as a
>> three-story tower might be spot on.
>
> Nah. Grizzly Bears are 6 HD and they're only 500lb. males. A 4 HD Ogre
> just can't be too big, nor can a 12 HD Giant. Even a T-Rex only weighs
> around 6 tonne for his classic 20 HD.
to CR for relatively mundane creatures.
>> T-Rex CR 13 height 28' weight 14000# lift 2800#
>
> Can stagger around with another T-Rex on it's back for a few seconds
> before collapsing. Cool. Only not really, because IRL you have to lift
> yourself aswell, but good for a D&D treatment.
but close enough for D&D.
> Though our dear friend the 40 tonne, 16m Sperm Whale bull makes them all
> look a bit sad, even if he is the biggest predator ever by a very large
> margin. Orca only around 6 tonne, 7m by comparison, stubby wee guy.
>
>> Orca CR 12 height 25' weight 10000# lift 2200#
>> Sperm-F CR 15 height 36' weight 28000# lift 4400#
>> Sperm-M CR 18 height 50' weight 80000# lift 8800#
CR 12 -> size 6 = 20.5-25.5', weight 7200-14,500# (23'/10,200#)
CR 15 -> size 7.5 = 28.5-35.75', weight 20k#-40k# (32'/29k#)
CR 18 -> size 9 = 40-50', weight 58k#-116k# (45'/82k#)
... freakishly close, really.
> And if you want dragons to top out at CR 27 like 3e does.
>
>> GWGD CR 24+3 height 100' weight 300 ton lift 16 ton
13.5 on the table I have is about 122', 925 tons
15 on the table I have is about 170', 2600 tons
Not as close, but dragons are often described as serpentine, not quite
human-shaped. Whales are closer to human proportions, I think.
0 new messages