As is common where variants of the same idea for a monster exist in 1E, the six basic giants are arranged in a clear hierarchy of power, with each type having one extra hit dice, one extra point of strength, and delivering one extra die of damage than the one below it. Unlike some other creatures, while the details change, this progression of power remains the same in later editions.
Hill giants seem to be based on typical European folklore, stupid but powerful brutes living out in the wilderness. Stone giants, however, may have been inspired by the mountain giants in The Hobbit, although the latter are so vaguely described it's difficult to know for sure.
1E
The original hill giants appear fairly human-like, but with exaggerated features and long arms reminiscent of an ape. They are said to be 10 feet and 6 inches (3.2 metres) tall, which seems unusually specific, but is probably intended to mean "75% taller than a human". The individual shown has a rangy physique and is dressed in crude furs. Together with his club, this suggests a palaeolithic level of technology. They have the same low intelligence as ogres, with which they're said to get on well. Their chaotic evil alignment suggests brutal violence as a way of life.
Despite their larger size, they don't move any faster than humans do, so they presumably aren't particularly agile (which is also what we'd expect from the description). The fact that they are remarkably difficult to injure therefore implies an exceptionally tough hide, equivalent to at least mail armour.
Stone giants are 12 feet (3.7 metres) tall and are shown as having a slender build with the sort of long, narrow, face that some particularly tall humans have. The description says they have hair, but the one in the picture happens to be bald. We can't tell what he's wearing, but palaeolithic technology is again strongly implied. Their skin may, in fact, be stony, although that's not obvious from the picture, since the armour rating is better than the best metal armour and, again, they don't seem to be fast-moving for their size (and they're hardly a small target). Unlike hill giants, stone giants are as intelligent as humans and seem to be more isolationist than actively hostile.
Both types of giant are said to live only in caves, reinforcing the stone age theme. They live in small groups that are probably intended to be extended families. Interestingly, males outnumber females three to one, with the result that most males end up unpaired, and many live in bachelor bands of up to four individuals. Females are, as is typical of 1E, weaker and less effectual than the males; this is especially true of hill giants, where the females have only half as many hit dice as their male counterparts.
2E
The first thing to note about giants in 2E is that they're much larger than they were in the previous edition. Hill giants, for instance, are now 16 feet (5 metres) tall and weigh 4,500 lbs (2 metric tonnes), noticeably taller than all but the two largest types of giant in 1E. This is apparently regardless of gender, and there's no longer any suggestion that the females are weaker. Their hit dice have increased proportionately, with hill giants now having about 50% more hit points than they did before. They appear even more obviously ape-like than in 1E with brow ridges and a bulky build. It's confirmed that their skin is unusually tough, although the hides they wear are apparently thick enough to block at least some weapon blows as well.
Hill giants retain the low intelligence of the first edition, but are now capable of speaking two or three languages, one of which is unique to their kind. Their communities are slightly larger than before, and they sometimes live in huts rather than "always" dwelling in caves, as before.
Stone giants are now 18 feet (5.5 metres) tall and, due to "dense flesh" weigh a whopping 9,000 lbs (4 tonnes) - about the same as an Asian bull elephant. They are now all as hairless as the one in the picture, and, again, the females are as physically tough as the males. Furthermore, the two sexes are now equally common, whereas hill giants haven't changed in this regard. This is the first edition to make reference to stone giant culture, which turns out to be relatively sophisticated, with artistry, animal husbandry, music, and trade. Like hill giants, they all speak two or three languages, and some of them can even cast spells.
3E
Giants have all mysteriously shrunk again in this edition, dropping back to their 1E sizes. The hill giant is given the same physical description; the one in the picture is fatter than before, and the brow ridges have gone, but some of that is likely just individual variation. The more detailed stats largely confirm the previous impression of lumbering oafs, although their skin is even tougher than before. Despite their chaotic and fractious nature, communities are now much larger. These are at least triple their former size and apparently the giants are often accompanied by bands of orcs as well as ogre families and numerous (domesticated?) dire wolves. There's no longer anything to suggest that males outnumber females.
The description of stone giants, and the illustration, is very similar to that in 2E and, like hill giants, they retain their enhanced hit dice despite their smaller size. Once again, their armour is better, aided in their case by the fact that they turn out to be remarkably agile (although still no faster than humans, despite their much longer legs). Presumably for much the same reason, they are also crack shots with their thrown rocks. They also have full darkvision, rather than the regular night vision given to hill giants - perhaps they spend more of their time underground. Their communities are of similar size to those of their smaller cousins, in their case supplemented by dire bears as well as herd animals.
Both types of giant now speak the same language, having lost their individual native tongues from 2E. Hill giants also no longer speak an additional language although, since ogres now speak Giant anyway, the loss has no practical effect.
5E
Another edition, another change to the heights, as giants bounce back to the 2E figures again. Hill giants become the only giants to have significantly changed their appearance from 1E by this edition. The long arms are gone, at least relative to their torsos, but the legs are much shorter, with greatly enlarged feet that probably help support their massive weight. Rather than having a low forehead, as earlier versions tended to have, this hill giant simply has a small head, at least in comparison to the arms and bloated torso. The stone giant seems to have hair again, but is otherwise clearly the same as the earlier versions.
5E hill giants are even stupider than they were in 3E, reflected in lower stats (equivalent to an ogre) as well as a text description that plays up their general idiocy. On the other hand, huts and other wooden buildings are now the standard, so they can at least build something, completing the shift away from the cave-dwelling 1E version. (In the Monster Manual, anyway, if not necessarily the scenarios that featured them...) Their skin is now the equivalent of tough leather, which is more justifiable than the almost impenetrable hide they had before.
Stone giants are much more similar to the 3E versions. Again, their skin isn't as tough as before, but it remains impressive, and better than most metal armour. There is more detail on their culture, which emphasises their inhabitation of subterranean caverns as well as their love of artistry and skill.
Giants are clearly humanoid in form, and hill giants in particular, are unlikely to have biology or anatomy that's substantially different from that of humans - except, of course, scaled up. Real-world humans with gigantism can suffer health problems as a result, but there's no reason that this would be an issue for fantasy giants, which would have evolved (or been created by the gods) to suit the size that they have.
The only real issue would be supporting their own bulk. The problem here, of course, is the oft-recurring one that weight increases as the cube of the height, assuming bodily proportions remain unchanged. This issue isn't one that applies to unusually tall humans, since they tend to have narrower builds than short people; this is why BMI isn't based on a cube law and therefore can't be applied to fantasy giants.
However, we can calculate the expected weight of a giant of given height if they retain human proportions. Using the Devine formula for ideal body weight, a 6-foot tall human should weigh 170 lbs. This means that a 1E/3E hill giant should weigh 910 lbs (410 kg) and a 2E/5E one should weigh 3,000 lbs (1.4 metric tonnes). And that assumes they aren't fat or exceptionally muscular, which they fairly obviously are.
This would require strong and thick bones to support, and the bones themselves add weight, and so need more support and... well, there's a reason that the legs of elephants, rhinos, and hippos are so short and thick. But clearly, it can be done, even for bipeds, given the existence of, say, Tyrannosaurus rex. And it might be that large lungs for breathing in thin mountain air would help reduce the weight from what it would otherwise be.The problem is more extreme for stone giants, and not just because they're taller. This is due to their supposedly dense flesh. In fact, if we do the calculations, the figure cited for their weight in 2E implies that they are about twice as heavy as we'd reasonably expect for their height and build - which means, for instance, that they'd sink in water and not be able to swim. This may not be true in later editions, especially 5E where their AC is lower... but what exactly would "dense flesh" be if they do have it?
It's pretty hard to compact flesh and muscle any more than it already is without adding something else to the mix. In the case of stone giants, this is probably mean to imply that their flesh is literally stony. But, while this seems to be true of some illustrations of stone giants, it's hard to square with their natural agility or their human-like appearance in most pictures. More likely, dense metals or other unusual mineral elements are infused into their skeletons, making their bones heavier, but stronger and more able to support their own bulk.
Just how strong is a giant? The issue is complicated by the fact that different numbers are used in different editions. So a stone giant has a strength of 20 in 1E and 2E, 27 in 3E, and 23 in 5E. But these don't necessarily represent radically different underlying values, since the numbers are chosen to have particular game mechanical effects that fit with the rules of the edition in question. In none of the editions is it at all likely that strength values are intended to be on a linear scale, especially once we get past the human 'maximum' of 18.
Of the six core attributes in D&D, strength is the one that's most easily quantified in the real world, but even so, measuring it in humans, let alone animals, isn't always as cut-and-dried as one might hope. As a result, there are many different estimates for how much stronger a gorilla is than a human, although about five or six times is a typically quoted figure. Assuming that the creature referred to as an "ape" in the 3E and 5E Monster Manuals is meant to be equivalent to a gorilla (rather than a chimp or orangutan, since it certainly isn't a gibbon) then even hill giants are considerably stronger than they are. Indeed, in 5E, so are many humans, which is a bit of a stretch.
Perhaps this is due to varying abilities to fully leverage strength in combat, rather than to raw power... although I can't imagine there are many humans who would do well in an unarmed fight against an enraged silverback. This may explain why, in 5E, an elephant has a strength somewhere between that of a hill giant and a stone giant, despite being considerably bulkier, and presumably more muscular, than either.
Converting D&D giants to other systems may pose problems if physical size is treated very differently than in their original system. Assuming that's not the case, then the general guideline is probably that a hill giant should have sufficient strength and/or size to deliver damage that's one notch above the maximum a normal human could manage. A stone giant is likely another notch above that, if the system is granular enough for that to still make sense when extended to the even larger forms of giant.
In other respects, and leaving aside the issue of which version of the height we're supposed to be using, giants of both kinds have a physical resilience that's also just above the human maximum. Hill giants are notable for having an intelligence score somewhere around the human minimum, while stone giants are more noted for having skin as tough as heavy metal-based armour. Making hill giants slow and clumsy is probably easy enough, although keeping stone giants both slow (for their size) and unusually agile might not work in some more simulationist systems, in which case the agility is surely more important.
No comments:
Post a Comment