# Firbolgs - A PC Race From VOLO'S GUIDE TO MONSTERS



## pukunui

WotC has just posted another preview from _Volo's Guide to Monsters_, this time the write-up for firbolgs. Get it here!  This is an example of one of the monsters-as-PC-races to be found in the book. Be sure to also check out Polygon's six-page preview, the fire giant dreadnoughts, the "lore on giants" preview, and the preface.






*Save**Save**Save**Save*​


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I love the fluff and mechanics. They have a powerful invisibility ability and are the first race with +2 wisdom.


----------



## flametitan

I knew they weren't going to diverge from the medium/small paradigm that they've previously set.

It looks like they'll do what they did with goliaths, and simply use powerful build to emulate the large size while still being medium.


----------



## One_Shots

Why put in a race that diverges so significantly from the original other than to pander to nostalgia? Why not create new races or utilise the plethora of other available options if they want to fill a book?

Firbolg have been 10 ft. tall since 1e and in every other edition. They've always been of a large size and, in fact, one of their special abilities has always been to shrink down a size. It's really just absurd to shoehorn them into a medium build so that they'll be a playable race.


----------



## Prakriti

The art took me by surprise, as it looks nothing like the firbolg from 2E, which is the only one I'm familiar with. Luckily, I have no attachment to the firbolg's previous incarnations, and I actually think this looks pretty good.

Interesting wording on Hidden Step, though. It makes you invisible "...until you attack, make a damage roll, or* force someone to make a saving throw*." This is different from all other invisibility effects. I wonder why.


----------



## flametitan

Prakriti said:


> Interesting wording on Hidden Step, though. It makes you invisible "...until you attack, make a damage roll, or* force someone to make a saving throw*." This is different from all other invisibility effects. I wonder why.




I'm guessing it's to allow for spells that _don't_ cause you to deal damage to be cast without breaking your invisibility? More of a "Nature will hide you unless you act with harmful intent" invisibility than a "You will be hidden until you do something that will cause you to be noticed" invisibility.



One_Shots said:


> Why put in a race that diverges so significantly from the original other than to pander to nostalgia? Why not create new races or utilise the plethora of other available options if they want to fill a book?
> 
> Firbolg have been 10 ft. tall since 1e and in every other edition. They've always been of a large size and, in fact, one of their special abilities has always been to shrink down a size. It's really just absurd to shoehorn them into a medium build so that they'll be a playable race.




I think it's fine. It allows for firbolgs to actually fit in with the standard adventuring party. Even if you have a magical ability to become medium, I assume it was only temporary. There's currently no explicit bonus to being large (All that exist are currently seemingly only something monsters are made with, rather than an innate "being large" bonus.) So all you're doing with large size is limiting what adventures a firbolg can partake in. And *if* the extra damage dice *is* an inherent bonus to being large, then it's probably too much for a racial ability (not to mention it'd probably skew the race towards fighter, when wotc clearly wants Druid.)

Basically it's to bring it in line with more the expectations of a regular adventuring party while still trying to appeal to the audience that would want a firbolg in the first place.


----------



## One_Shots

flametitan said:


> It allows for firbolgs to actually fit in with the standard adventuring party.



So why have it as a playable race at all then? There are hundreds of other races they could've chosen to make playable. There was no burning need to have firbolgs be a playable race. But to make them one, they had to so radically alter them from their well known and established lineage that they no longer resemble the original which makes the entire exercise pointless other than to play upon nostalgia. They could've simply called it some other thing and made it an entirely new race if they were that keen on introducing another goliath-like race.


----------



## Ganymede81

And people laughed when I suggested Firbolgs would fit in better as a player race as compared to Goliaths.


----------



## flametitan

Ganymede81 said:


> And people laughed when I suggested Firbolgs would fit in better as a player race as compared to Goliaths.




It helps that the Firbolg was given a unique identity beyond "Tall human," even if it did divert from the original lore, while the Goliath was stuck for the most part with the "Tall competitive people."


----------



## vecna00

I had just stumbled upon this and came here to see if it was posted.

I'm not too upset at the change, but I am curious as to what their actual design decision is on it, speculation aside.


----------



## Demetrios1453

hawkeyefan said:


> Interesting. A bit of a departure from depictions in earlier editions. Much more nature oriented...seems they're playing up the fey aspect based on the Celtic origins of the race.




I found the fey focus rather interesting myself - it does make sense given the creature's mythological origins, and the race has always been the most nature-oriented of the giant types anyway.

The two-foot drop in size will take a bit of getting used to, but it's hardly a deal breaker, and, really, despite what others are saying, it's not _that_ huge of a difference. I've seen far more radical changes over various editions than this. Maybe after centuries of shrinking themselves magically, they were cursed/blessed by some god or archfey or nature itself with a naturally smaller size?


----------



## pukunui

Even though they can speak Giant, the write-up indicates that they are humanoids. This leaves me wondering if they still mainly worship Hiatea or not. (I have a player who now wants to ditch his existing PC and make a firbolg druid, so I have to think about these things.)


----------



## Demetrios1453

pukunui said:


> Even though they can speak Giant, the write-up indicates that they are humanoids. This leaves me wondering if they still mainly worship Hiatea or not. (I have a player who now wants to ditch his existing PC and make a firbolg druid, so I have to think about these things.)




They are a sort of a humanoid-giant-fey mixture, if that makes any sense lol...

The "classes" section there just mentions "nature gods" in general. As Hiatea is a nature god, so it wouldn't seem out of place for her to be one of the main deities firbolg clerics would worship.

This has gotten me wondering, will we see some info on the various gods/pantheons of the "featured" creatures? Even if it were just charts and quick run-downs like in SCAG, it would be something nice to see...


----------



## pukunui

Demetrios1453 said:


> They are a sort of a humanoid-giant-fey mixture, if that makes any sense lol...



It does. However, I think if we ever see one in monster statblock form, it'll say _"medium humanoid (firbolg)"_ at the top.



> The "classes" section there just mentions "nature gods" in general. As Hiatea is a nature god, so it wouldn't seem out of place for her to be one of the main deities firbolg clerics would worship.



Yeah, I'm just thinking it would be kind of weird for them to not have their own god(s). I have to think about it for my own homebrew world. Do I want them to worship their own god(s)? If yes, should it be the giant pantheon? Or a pantheon of their own? Or should I have them worship the same pantheon as the wood elves? (In my campaign, high elves and eladrin are agnostic at best, as they believe gods to be little more than children's stories. Also, no one knows if any of the gods are real, and there are no clerics or paladins to "prove" their existence.) 



> This has gotten me wondering, will we see some info on the various gods/pantheons of the "featured" creatures? Even if it were just charts and quick run-downs like in SCAG, it would be something nice to see...



That would be cool.


----------



## Mecheon

Prakriti said:


> The art took me by surprise, as it looks nothing like the firbolg from 2E, which is the only one I'm familiar with. Luckily, I have no attachment to the firbolg's previous incarnations, and I actually think this looks pretty good.



Honestly Firbolg looked very generic in past editions. 4E was the only one where I felt they had some flavor, even though that flavor was "White pupils, Raven-Queen worshipping Wild Hunters". Everywhere else they were just tall vikings


----------



## Charles Rampant

I really like this race! I've got zero attachment to the earlier incarnations, so any whinging about it being a nostalgia grab doesn't really apply. Instead, I think that these guys do a really nice job of fitting into the 'nature people' concept that we have a few variations on already (Forest Gnomes, Wood Elves, Halflings-sort-of) and yet they have their own take on it that I think stands out. The picture is really excellent actually, and I think that at least half of my enjoyment of the race comes from how nice that guy looks; I'd love to have him as a neighbour! 

Stats-wise, we've clearly got a Druid-leaning race here, which is no bad thing as I don't think any other race leans that heavily towards that class. I mean, while bending expectations with a Tiefling Barbarian or whatever is fun, it is also good to have the 'easy pairings' to play around with. Tiefling Warlocks, Half-Orc Barbarians, Halfling Rogues, all of these are solid and entertaining cliches that are useful to work with. Firbolg Druids and, perhaps, Nature Paladins is a solid addition to that catalogue. The magical abilities are good fun, and match the Duergar mentality quite nicely, being powerful but not spammable. They have a fairly surprising stealth focus for such big lads.

Roleplaying & personality wise, I think that we're missing part of the writeup here (the fluff bit). However, from what we get here, a definite 'gentle giant' theme seems to be present, and the Fey side of things is working for me. I don't know much about Fey, certainly not in a D&D context, so I'm hoping that Volo's puts a lot of effort into expanding that side of things. 

Overall, I'm really pleased with this race, and eager to both play one and see one played in my games. I had been worried that we'd get a bunch of useless savages as new races - even if Gnoll had been available, I'd probably not have been interested in having one in my game anyway - but if we get some other fun and viable races then I'll be very happy indeed.


----------



## ferratus

It seems the Firbolgs have murdered the Voadkyn and taken their flavour and abilities.  The Voadkyn were always the smallest giant-kin, the "elvish" giant-kin and the ones with the most "druidic" outlook.  They even took the Voadkyn's pointy ears.

I do think that this version of the Firbolg has a more consistent design, and I guess the "strong human" niche is already being filled by the Goliath.  It would be nice to have a race that can enlarge itself that doesn't have the baggage of the duergar though.

But yeah, these are Voadkyn, and they seem to be a more popular version of the Voadkyn given the positive response that this design seems to be having.  Everyone always seemed to hate the Voadkyn before.


----------



## waxtransient

The bit about saving throws could have to do with using magic items or maybe it is a nod to the Mystic class, whose abilities aren't actually spells, AFAIK.


----------



## steeldragons

ferratus said:


> It seems the Firbolgs have murdered the Voadkyn and taken their flavour and abilities.  The Voadkyn were always the smallest giant-kin, the "elvish" giant-kin and the ones with the most "druidic" outlook.  They even took the Voadkyn's pointy ears.




It would appear so. Though I had to google "Voadkyn" to find out anything about them/had never heard of them. But right down to the size change, the disguise ability, it all sounds like a direct rip off. Granted voadkyn are just a made up thing and firbolg are part of the creation prehistory "myth-story" of Ireland. So I get it. But such a direct departure from what firbolgs were (in actual myth and D&D lore) to simply relabel a [specifically Forgotten Realms, mind you] creature is somewhat....irritating. But we will continue to be told, I am sure, that the Forgotten Realms is NOT 5e D&D's default setting. [No really! It's NOT! Listen to us! But accept and buy the brand!] 



> I do think that this version of the Firbolg has a more consistent design, and I guess the "strong human" niche is already being filled by the Goliath.  It would be nice to have a race that can enlarge itself that doesn't have the baggage of the duergar though.




Does seem so. Maybe you'll get a Spriggan as a playable race form this book. That's kinda their thing. If they work them into more "fey gnomes with anger management issues" which they kind of originally are/were, versus anything with a directly evil alignment (which I believe they have been in editions past).

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]







> [/FONT]But yeah, these are Voadkyn, and they seem to be a more popular version of the Voadkyn given the positive response that this design seems to be having.  Everyone always seemed to hate the Voadkyn before.




After reading their little D&D wiki write-up, I have to concur. Like, almost to the letter. AND even shorter than them! Voadkyn are listed with average heights of 8'10" upwards to 9'4". So, they stole all of their flavor and abilities and still docked them a foot so they could be "medium humanoids" instead of "elvish giants."

But again, taking something that was just made up for Forgotten Realms and slapping a more "real world" name on it -and then present them as that legitimate thing in a new book- might give it a bit more notice/wider appeal...from where I'm sitting, it is just a blatant -rather lazy- copying (not really a "rip off" since it's theirs anyway). But, also again, if you had not posted about them, I would have never even have heard of "voadkyn." Seems strange that given FR's prominence in 5e, the fact that this very manual is SPECIFICALLY framed as a Forgotten Realms one, with a FR character doing the "research" and presenting these new creatures, that they wouldn't have just stuck with the Forgotten Realms made-up name.

It almost feels like a "bait & switch." 

Bait & switches annoy me.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

pukunui said:


> Even though they can speak Giant, the write-up indicates that they are humanoids. This leaves me wondering if they still mainly worship Hiatea or not. (I have a player who now wants to ditch his existing PC and make a firbolg druid, so I have to think about these things.)




In 5e, it appears that "humanoid" is any PC playable race, or any version of a different type of critter that is a PC (see revenants and minotaurs).  They have been very consistent about it.  If they made a centaur PC option, it would be humanoid, ditto sprite, red dragon, modron, or angel:  they would all be humanoids.  I suspect it is for mechanical simplicity--everyone can be healed by the same spells, and if one PC can walk on hallowed ground, they all can.  DM's obviously can change that in their home games.

The other part of the "humanoid" definition seems to be basically anything that can fit in the NPC classes from the MM without changing the challenge rating.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

steeldragons said:


> It would appear so. Though I had to google "Voadkyn" to find out anything about them/had never heard of them. But right down to the size change, the disguise ability, it all sounds like a direct rip off. Granted voadkyn are just a made up thing and firbolg are part of the creation prehistory "myth-story" of Ireland. So I get it. But such a direct departure from what firbolgs were (in actual myth and D&D lore) to simply relabel a [specifically Forgotten Realms, mind you] creature is somewhat....irritating. But we will continue to be told, I am sure, that the Forgotten Realms is NOT 5e D&D's default setting. [No really! It's NOT! Listen to us! But accept and buy the brand!]
> 
> 
> 
> Does seem so. Maybe you'll get a Spriggan as a playable race form this book. That's kinda their thing. If they work them into more "fey gnomes with anger management issues" which they kind of originally are/were, versus anything with a directly evil alignment (which I believe they have been in editions past).
> 
> [FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]
> 
> After reading their little D&D wiki write-up, I have to concur. Like, almost to the letter. AND even shorter than them! Voadkyn are listed with average heights of 8'10" upwards to 9'4". So, they stole all of their flavor and abilities and still docked them a foot so they could be "medium humanoids" instead of "elvish giants."
> 
> But again, taking something that was just made up for Forgotten Realms and slapping a more "real world" name on it -and then present them as that legitimate thing in a new book- might give it a bit more notice/wider appeal...from where I'm sitting, it is just a blatant -rather lazy- copying (not really a "rip off" since it's theirs anyway). But, also again, if you had not posted about them, I would have never even have heard of "voadkyn." Seems strange that given FR's prominence in 5e, the fact that this very manual is SPECIFICALLY framed as a Forgotten Realms one, with a FR character doing the "research" and presenting these new creatures, that they wouldn't have just stuck with the Forgotten Realms made-up name.
> 
> It almost feels like a "bait & switch."
> 
> Bait & switches annoy me.






Maybe Volo has it wrong there... and there is an Elminster sidebar that tells us how Volo mixed it up.


----------



## Jester David

Interesting...

My attitude towards canon is well known: I'm not a fan of needless changes. Someone's firbolg heavy campaign will be impacted by this, even if it's just them homebrewing the content. 

However... both the firbolg and wood giant were pretty under used monsters. They shared a similar design space as the "not evil, woodland giants", possibly with a connection to the feywild and fey/ eladrin. Little made them interesting. 
It makes some sense to merge the two and make the firbolg more distinct than "a big dude that isn't an ogre/ hill giant", while also giving the Voadkyn a better tie to mythology (and less weird head). To give them a niche in the world.


----------



## Mercule

I've used Firbolg as a PC race, in my primary home brew, since 1E. The geographic focus has shifted since then (from pseudo-Germanic/Baltic to pseudo-Mediterranean), so I haven't revisited them. These are definitely not related to the Firbolgs I used, though.

I honestly can't say whether I like the race or not. It was definitely not what I was expecting and my initial reaction is very negative. We'll see if I get over it.

Right now, though, I've seen nothing in Volo's Guide that has me interested in purchasing it. I'm probably going to pass.


----------



## One_Shots

Jester David said:


> Little made them interesting.



I have to strongly disagree there. The Firbolg were very distinct. They were outside the ordning and kept their own style of organisation which kept them secret, safe and separate from the other races. They also had distinct abilities of polymorphing and swatting missiles aside and wielding their own oversized weapons, and normal-sized two-handed weapons in one hand. They were fey-adjacent rather than actual fey. They were more like oversized dwarves in character and demeanour than they were ogres, especially given their high intelligence and wisdom. They were also quite agile and stealthy.

And now? Now they're just another warped, shoe-horned in, fun-sized player race with no real resemblance to the 40 years of history behind them.

I had forgotten about the Voadkyn though. If they'd called this race Voadkyn, I'd have no problem with it and would in fact be quite happy with that. I'll probably just call them Voadkyn at my tables. But calling them firbolg when they're really nothing like firbolg, I think, is just a bit silly and unnecessary.


----------



## aarduini

flametitan said:


> It helps that the Firbolg was given a unique identity beyond "Tall human," even if it did divert from the original lore, while the Goliath was stuck for the most part with the "Tall competitive people."




If you guys remember, the Goliath was originally cast as looking different than humans. They had Lidoderm's all over their body. I'm actually thinking of buying one of the Privateer Press Trollkin figures and using it as a Goliath


----------



## I'm A Banana

I don't think this is THAT big of a change. 

I think that the use of oversized weapons is going to have to be filled in a different way than as a racial quality. It's important that this be filled, and I think the *powerful build* trait gives us a way to do it, but it might not be a racial trait in and of itself. 

I also think that they're missing some abilities, but we might have a Svirfneblin situation where a feat could add them. 

They DO bite a bit of the voadkyn's style, what with the impersonating other humanoids thing, but voadkyn and firbolg weren't all that far apart to begin with, and there's still room to differentiate 'em (Voadkyn seem a little less "fey" influenced, though their friendly with elves). 

For me, if we restore a few of their special features (SLA's, swatting stuff aside, possible oversized weapons), these guys would be fine firbolgs. And I like the vibe of doubling-down on the fey aspects - gives them a bit more character, I think.


----------



## Jester David

One_Shots said:


> I have to strongly disagree there. The Firbolg were very distinct. They were outside the ordning and kept their own style of organisation which kept them secret, safe and separate from the other races. They also had distinct abilities of polymorphing and swatting missiles aside and wielding their own oversized weapons, and normal-sized two-handed weapons in one hand. They were fey-adjacent rather than actual fey. They were more like oversized dwarves in character and demeanour than they were ogres, especially given their high intelligence and wisdom. They were also quite agile and stealthy.



Using large sized weapons isn't what i would call "distinctive" for a Large creature. Swatting away missiles isn't particularly evocative either. Hopefully that will be retained in the monsterous version statblock. 
And being out of the ordning just makes them unconnected from others of their kin. Like they were forgotten. Of course, that bit of lore could still be retained. 

Plus "oversized dwarves" already somewhat describes fire giants, and the oversized viking look also overlaps with frost giants. 

The polymorophing seems to be somewhat retained, albeit as more cosmetic. 



One_Shots said:


> And now? Now they're just another warped, shoe-horned in, fun-sized player race with no real resemblance to the 40 years of history behind them.



That "40 years of history" line doesn't seem appropriate. They were pretty underused prior to 1995's _Giantcraft_. And pretty ignored since. 
Plus, the D&D history has little resemblance to the centuries of history prior. It just appropriated the name. 

That said, I do think they could have worked harder to make the race a hybrid of the two concepts, retaining more of the classic D&D firbolg apperance. It reinvents the wheel a little too much.


----------



## Zarithar

As someone else pointed out, this depiction is more in line with their roots in Celtic mythology. I dig it.


----------



## TwoSix

One_Shots said:


> So why have it as a playable race at all then? There are hundreds of other races they could've chosen to make playable. There was no burning need to have firbolgs be a playable race. But to make them one, they had to so radically alter them from their well known and established lineage that they no longer resemble the original which makes the entire exercise pointless other than to play upon nostalgia. They could've simply called it some other thing and made it an entirely new race if they were that keen on introducing another goliath-like race.



Oh no, they shrunk them down from 10 feet to 8 feet?!  Those monsters!  My childhood is shattered!


----------



## QuietBrowser

ferratus said:


> But yeah, these are Voadkyn, and they seem to be a more popular version of the Voadkyn given the positive response that this design seems to be having.  Everyone always seemed to hate the Voadkyn before.




Have you see the traditional Voadkyn artwork? They're hideous! I'm not surprised they were unpopular. Seriously, how do you start from a base of "giant wood elf" and end up with "bald bulbous-headed humanoid with grotesquely naked cat-ears atop their head"?

Anyway, comparing the Firbolg here to their AD&D writeup in the Complete Book of Humanoids, I don't think the changes are that severe. In AD&D, they got +2 Strength, -2 Charisma, +13 HP, natural AC of 3, an assortment of 1/day spell like abilities (Detect Magic at 3rd level, Diminution at 5th level, Fools Gold at 7th level and Forget at 9th level), could use two-handed human-scale weapons one-handed, could use Large scale weapons like normal, could deflect 2 missiles per round on a 6+ d20 check if they had a hand free, could catch a boulder and throw it back, and had 15% Magic Resistance. Additionally, Shamans got random Illusion/Phantasm spells as spell-like abilities, amounting to 10 1st level spells and 4 2nd level spells. To pay for all of these, they couldn't add their Strength bonus to attacks with man-made weapons, doubled the XP costs to advance as Fighters, tripled the XP costs to advance as Shamans, and took damage as Large creatures.

With this in mind, this is honestly a pretty decent effort at translating them. They were always the "magical, stealthy, reclusive giant-kin" in editions past, with a strong Druidic/Fey vibe. So, with inherent druid-powers (speak to animals and plants) and stealth (invisibility and alter-self 1/encounter), Powerful Build... yeah, this feels more or less accurate to me. At least they actually bothered to update them.


----------



## pukunui

Why do you guys suppose they made the beast/plant communication one-way? They can talk to them but can't understand any responses.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

pukunui said:


> Why do you guys suppose they made the beast/plant communication one-way? They can talk to them but can't understand any responses.




Maybe because low Int/non-Int beasts and plants don't really have a language to communicate back with?


----------



## I'm A Banana

pukunui said:


> Why do you guys suppose they made the beast/plant communication one-way? They can talk to them but can't understand any responses.




It's a fluffy ability, so I'm thinking it's a fluffy reasoning. Check out the paragraph on "names." Given the naturalistic vibe, I think that words and language are not all that important to firbolgs - a wolf doesn't need language to coordinate with its pack, a panther doesn't need language to hunt, a squirrel doesn't need language to store its nuts. Plants and animals understand when the firbolg speaks - and the firbolg only needs to watch and listen to know the reply.


----------



## Dausuul

+1 Strength for a race that averages 7-8 feet tall? That's... odd. They're weaker than mountain dwarves.

Aside from that, it seems fine. Although I do wish they would be a little bolder mechanics-wise. It's not the end of the world to have a Large-sized PC race.


----------



## Wrathamon

Dausuul said:


> +1 Strength for a race that averages 7-8 feet tall? That's... odd. They're weaker than mountain dwarves.
> 
> Aside from that, it seems fine. Although I do wish they would be a little bolder mechanics-wise. It's not the end of the world to have a Large-sized PC race.




No, they aren't weaker they can lift, pull and push more than a dwarf. Meaning they are "stronger" than any mt dwarf.

In combat, they don't do as much "damage" with melee attacks and dwarves are better at making str saves.  MT. Dwarves know how to use their strength in combat better.


----------



## Dausuul

Wrathamon said:


> No, they aren't weaker they can lift, pull and push more than a dwarf. Meaning they are "stronger" than any mt dwarf.
> 
> In combat, they don't do as much "damage" with melee attacks and dwarves are better at making str saves.  MT. Dwarves know how to use their strength in combat better.



Hmm, okay. I can buy that. Strength is kind of a weird stat.

Still wish they would just make them Large already, instead of squishing them down to fit within the tippy-top of the Medium range. But that's more a personal pet peeve than anything else.


----------



## Demetrios1453

steeldragons said:


> It would appear so. Though I had to google "Voadkyn" to find out anything about them/had never heard of them. But right down to the size change, the disguise ability, it all sounds like a direct rip off. Granted voadkyn are just a made up thing and firbolg are part of the creation prehistory "myth-story" of Ireland. So I get it. But such a direct departure from what firbolgs were (in actual myth and D&D lore) to simply relabel a [specifically Forgotten Realms, mind you] creature is somewhat....irritating. But we will continue to be told, I am sure, that the Forgotten Realms is NOT 5e D&D's default setting. [No really! It's NOT! Listen to us! But accept and buy the brand!]
> 
> 
> 
> Does seem so. Maybe you'll get a Spriggan as a playable race form this book. That's kinda their thing. If they work them into more "fey gnomes with anger management issues" which they kind of originally are/were, versus anything with a directly evil alignment (which I believe they have been in editions past).
> 
> [FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]
> 
> After reading their little D&D wiki write-up, I have to concur. Like, almost to the letter. AND even shorter than them! Voadkyn are listed with average heights of 8'10" upwards to 9'4". So, they stole all of their flavor and abilities and still docked them a foot so they could be "medium humanoids" instead of "elvish giants."
> 
> But again, taking something that was just made up for Forgotten Realms and slapping a more "real world" name on it -and then present them as that legitimate thing in a new book- might give it a bit more notice/wider appeal...from where I'm sitting, it is just a blatant -rather lazy- copying (not really a "rip off" since it's theirs anyway). But, also again, if you had not posted about them, I would have never even have heard of "voadkyn." Seems strange that given FR's prominence in 5e, the fact that this very manual is SPECIFICALLY framed as a Forgotten Realms one, with a FR character doing the "research" and presenting these new creatures, that they wouldn't have just stuck with the Forgotten Realms made-up name.





Voadkyn were originally Greyhawk, not FR. In fact, when they were updated to 2e, they first appeared in the Greyhawk Monstrous Compendium pack, and not the FR one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voadkyn).


----------



## steeldragons

Demetrios1453 said:


> Voadkyn were originally Greyhawk, not FR. In fact, when they were updated to 2e, they first appeared in the Greyhawk Monstrous Compendium pack, and not the FR one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voadkyn).




No kidding? Huh. The wiki I read only put them in terms of FR. And they were "updated" to 2e? When were they introduced? I honestly never heard of them before this thread.


----------



## Demetrios1453

pukunui said:


> That would be cool.




Looks like there will be deity discussion in the book. After reading the fully Polygon article, it states that the kobold deities will be fully covered. I would assume that will go for any of the other "featured" monster types as well...


----------



## Herobizkit

Giant gnomes who pretend to be elves to fit in.

*grump*

More elf love for the Forgotten Realms. 

Aside: the evil counterpart to Firbolgs were Verbeegs which, after some laughable pun humour, don't amount to anything much.


----------



## pukunui

Demetrios1453 said:


> Looks like there will be deity discussion in the book. After reading the fully Polygon article, it states that the kobold deities will be fully covered. I would assume that will go for any of the other "featured" monster types as well...



Yeah, I saw that! Hopefully there will be some mention of firbolg deities too.


----------



## Shades of Eternity

honestly, reminds me a lot of the  The Twilight Giants trilogy if Tavis would have had a profound affect on the Firbolg culture.

I kinda approve. 

The Twilight Giants trilogy was a fun read.


----------



## Demetrios1453

pukunui said:


> Yeah, I saw that! Hopefully there will be some mention of firbolg deities too.




Even if they don't go into more detail than what we've seen in the firbolg section, Hiatea should get coverage in the giant section. It would be annoying if the connection isn't specifically spelled out in one section or the other, but that's hardly a fatal issue.


----------



## Azzy

Meh.


----------



## gyor

One_Shots said:


> I have to strongly disagree there. The Firbolg were very distinct. They were outside the ordning and kept their own style of organisation which kept them secret, safe and separate from the other races. They also had distinct abilities of polymorphing and swatting missiles aside and wielding their own oversized weapons, and normal-sized two-handed weapons in one hand. They were fey-adjacent rather than actual fey. They were more like oversized dwarves in character and demeanour than they were ogres, especially given their high intelligence and wisdom. They were also quite agile and stealthy.
> 
> And now? Now they're just another warped, shoe-horned in, fun-sized player race with no real resemblance to the 40 years of history behind them.
> 
> I had forgotten about the Voadkyn though. If they'd called this race Voadkyn, I'd have no problem with it and would in fact be quite happy with that. I'll probably just call them Voadkyn at my tables. But calling them firbolg when they're really nothing like firbolg, I think, is just a bit silly and unnecessary.




 I agree with you, they just renamed the Voadkyn Firbolgs becauese Firbolg has better name recognition, but its a Voadkyn so I wonder how they're going to explain why they called it Firbolg.


----------



## gyor

Looking at the page, it appears to be the 2nd or 3rd page in the Firbolg racial section given that it starts off with names at the top if we go by how the PHB did races.


----------



## Selvarin

One_Shots said:


> So why have it as a playable race at all then? There are hundreds of other races they could've chosen to make playable. There was no burning need to have firbolgs be a playable race. But to make them one, they had to so radically alter them from their well known and established lineage that they no longer resemble the original which makes the entire exercise pointless other than to play upon nostalgia. They could've simply called it some other thing and made it an entirely new race if they were that keen on introducing another goliath-like race.





Some of us really don't care for goliaths, so having more fitting options is nice.

Just like some may not care for dragonborn but wouldn't mind playing a 'lizardfolk' character.


In any event it won't kill us if the larger types get reorganized.


----------



## One_Shots

Jester David said:


> That "40 years of history" line doesn't seem appropriate. They were pretty underused prior to 1995's _Giantcraft_. And pretty ignored since.



Please speak for yourself instead of all of D&D for the last 40 years.


----------



## Jester David

One_Shots said:


> Please speak for yourself instead of all of D&D for the last 40 years.



You mean the 33 year history, as firbolgs didn't appear until the _Monster Manual II_ published in 1983, along with the fomorian and verbeeg. 
Between the galeb dur and gibbering mouther.

After that, they were in the _Monstrous Compendium Volume Two_ in 2nd Edition and the _MM2 _in both 3rd and 4th editions. I can't see many mentions apart from the _Complete Book of Humanoids_ and _Giantcraft_. 
(Assuming you could 4e during that 33-year period, as the firbolg were hunters of the feywild and associated with the Wild Hunt. And had none of the abilities you mention, instead having a _faerie fire_ variant as the signature power.)

So I stand by my statement of "underused" and "ignored".


----------



## Demetrios1453

I wonder how the discussion around here would go should Chapter 3 contains a 5e version of the voadkyn as well...


----------



## One_Shots

Jester David said:


> So I stand by my statement of "underused" and "ignored".



So because you didn't use them, millions of other people didn't either, and nobody played any other edition but the currently supported one during that period.

Well done, you've earned yourself an ignore.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Okay, let's do this:

1e Firbolg:
[sblock]
View attachment 77619
_source: Monster Manual 2_​*Story*
They are cautious, crafty, and have considerable magical power. They have learned to distrust (and fear) humans, and will be found only in remote and wild places. They enjoy appearing as little people and duping humans out of their treasure. They gots shamans that also use illusion spells.

*Abilities*

 Uses two-handed swords or halberds in one hand, or double-sized weapons that deal 2x damage.
 Deflect missiles 2/round
 SLA's: Detect Magic, Diminution (as a _potion of_, lets you shrink between 5% and, I guess, nothingness?), Fool's Gold (illusory gold), Forget (MiB memory-eraser), and Alter Self
 magic resistance
[/sblock]

2e firbolg:
[sblock]
View attachment 77620
_sources: Monstrous Manual, Complete Book of Humanoids, Giantcraft_​
*Story*
10 ft. + tall and 800+ lbs, long hair, thick beards, pink skin, blonde/red hair (very nordic!) with a smooth, thick, bass voice. Live in forests and hills, but like to stay remote. On good terms with druids and fey (including elves), but relationships are cold. Like to meet members of other races in disguise, and like to "prank" people out of their money. They've got a clan structure with a shaman, and live as gatherers or nomads. Meet 1/year at a great enclave of all the clans at the fall solstice - it's a big party that also helps settle clan disputes. They clear lots of trees (to make big houses and burn in their massive fireplaces). They trade their strength for food with their neighbors, hunt, gather, and have a small field. Not a lot of meat, but the parties have roasts. The like storm giants, fight against other giant-kin, avoid true giants, other intelligent creatures tend to leave them alone. 

In the _Complete Book of Humanoids_ they are described as working together in their battles, adventuring to learn about magic and gain treasure.

In _Giantcraft_, we learn that in FR, they're not part of the Ordning, they're democratic (the vote!) and egalitarian (believing acts are more important than birth). They like a particular code they keep written and in an amulet. They're charitable, honest, believe in equality and sacrifice for one's people. 

*Abilities*
Basically the same as 1e. In the _Complete Book of Humanoids_, the SLA's can't be used in a fight, they "never wear armor of any sort, nor do they carry shields," they have an XP penalty (2x for Fighter, 3x for Shaman), and a fear of mobs. In _Giantcraft_, their lack of armor is because it is seen as "cowardly" to wear armor, and no one mentions their magic resistance.
[/sblock]

3e firbolg:
[sblock]
View attachment 77621
_source: monster manual 2_​*Story*
Basically the same: reclusive, crafty, good-natured giant-kin. Noted that they have druid leaders rather than shaman leaders (favored class: druid).

*Abilities*

Huckin' rocks and catching rocks
Trample
Fast healing (?!)
SLA's: alter self, detect magic, _feeblemind_ (probably replacing _forget_) and _know direction_ (because druid?)
[/sblock]

4e firbolg:
[sblock]
View attachment 77624
_source: monster manual 2_​*Story*
Welp.

They live in the Feywild now, and they're unaligned. They're "agents of destiny, death, and the unforgiving wild." They created the Wild Hunt, and their lairs perch on precarious bits of rock (high peaks, floating earthmotes, etc.). They worship Sehanine, Melora, and the Raven Queen as three goddesses (Maiden, Mother, and Crone), and their preistesses are females called Moon Seers. They want promises from their enemies, not wealth or trophies. They can be called upon to hunt those who have broken oaths. They'll occasionally work with centaurs and their hunts are with hounds of the Wild Hunt.

*Abilities*
4e, so it depends on which "role" you're talkin' about. However, all had _moonfire_, which prohibits the target from benefitting from cover or concealment (kind of like a _faerie fire_ effect, I guess). They were vulnerable to Necrotic damage, which prohibited their regeneration (?!) from working. 
[/sblock]

...and then we've got these dudes.

As is 5e's wont, I think it's trying to thread the lore from all four editions through itself and come out with something. Thematically, narratively, I think this thing resonates - it peels a bit more from 3e/4e, but "I'm a nice and reclusive giant!" isn't exactly super defining. Even their _Giantcraft_ description makes me groan as it gushes on about how generically Nice And Good these guys are. The only lore better than this so far has actually, IMO, been the 4e lore, though I think framing them as fey antagonists who invented the Wild Hunt is all unnecessary. These firbolgs can contain within them the story of 3e/2e/1e firbolgs with plenty of room to spare for being close to the fey, and finding them as 4e firbolgs wouldn't be entirely out of place, either. 

Ability-wise....you know, they kept the SLA's that were consistent from 1e to 3e: something to change their appearance, and _detect magic_. They can't alter memory, make illusory money, slam your INT into the basement, line you in blue-white flames, or...know which way north is?...anymore, but those abilities don't seem too core to the critter. Knocking away items wasn't something 3e or 4e cared about at all. 

The biggest change is making them Medium - no big weapons.

And that's kind of a deeper issue in 5e in general, exhibited also with Goliaths. What people _want_ is to carry around a bit weapon and deal a ton of damage with it. That's a bit much for a racial trait in 5e (well, it was probably a bit much for a racial trait in _any_ e...2e gave you XP penalties and deprived you of armor...3e had an ECL of +18 (woah!)). 

That's a legit desire, though, and it's something I'd like to see mechanically addressed so that goliaths and firbolgs and our future Powerful Build races can all go around one-handing greatswords or whatever. 

...maybe a feat that has *powerful build* as a prerequisite that lets you do that. Or, even, a Fighter subclass, so our Goliath barbarians and Firbolg druids don't necessarily benefit.


----------



## Mistwell

One_Shots said:


> So because you didn't use them, millions of other people didn't either, and nobody played any other edition but the currently supported one during that period.
> 
> Well done, you've earned yourself an ignore.




Kinda going overboard there, aren't yah? He didn't say YOU underused them, he was saying the rules and adventures did. He wasn't speaking for your game...though you did appear to speak for "millions of others", which itself is a pretty massively hyperbolic statement. But throwing the guy on ignore (and publicly talking about doing it rather than just doing it) over than, with just 40 posts under your belt and therefore not much interaction with him? Seems extreme.


----------



## Parmandur

Demetrios1453 said:


> I wonder how the discussion around here would go should Chapter 3 contains a 5e version of the voadkyn as well...





Wouldn't be surprising...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

aarduini said:


> If you guys remember, the Goliath was originally cast as looking different than humans. They had Lidoderm's all over their body. I'm actually thinking of buying one of the Privateer Press Trollkin figures and using it as a Goliath



Wait, do 5e Goliaths not have lithoderms, inhumanly big frames, little to no hair, and black eyes? 

Pfft. Good thing I can ignore that and use them as I have been. Lame.


----------



## ferratus

Herobizkit said:


> Aside: the evil counterpart to Firbolgs were Verbeegs which, after some laughable pun humour, don't amount to anything much.




Verbeegs are my absolute favourite giants.  They fight dirty, they whisper "suggestions" into the dimwitted heads of other giants making them more agressive, and are malformed malcontents who are constantly on the lookout for their next scheme.

A Verbeeg giant used properly can be the best middle manager of monsters your campaign ever had.


----------



## ferratus

cbwjm said:


> I think the 5e Firbolg write up has more in common with the (2e version) Firbolg than the Voadkyn.




No, the magical abilities are literally exactly the same as that of the Voadkyn.   I will quote directly from 2e AD&D Monstrous Manual.

5e Disguise self ability.  2e: _The only magical skill voadkyn have is the ability to polymorph into any humanoid figure, from 3 to 15 feet in height. They cannot become a specific individual, only a typical specimen of that race.
_

5e Invisibility Power.  2e: _Wood giants can move silently in a forest, despite their great height, thus imposing a -4 penalty to opponents' surprise rolls. They can blend into forest vegetation, becoming effectively invisible. Only creatures able to detect invisible objects can see them. Although they are not invisible while attacking, they are extremely quick (Dexterity 16) and can *move out of hiding, launch an arrow, and move back into hiding in the same round*._ (This is why hidden step suits the Voadkyn more)


5e Elf Friendship and Elven Names.  2e: _The young are born and raised deep in the woods among the wood elves, away from prying eyes. 
The strong bond between wood elves and wood giants goes back further than either race can remember. This may account for the elven abilities of the giants._

Plus the Voadkyn were much more elvish than the Firbolg.  They traveled in the company of elves 60% of the time and used giant longbows for pete's sake.  The Firbolg on the other hand lived in clearings on the frontier in log houses and primarily fought by illusions first to avoid the fight, before fighting with great strength and martial strategy.  They did have shamans, but in 2e that was more "monster god cleric" than "druid".


----------



## ferratus

I'm A Banana said:


> As is 5e's wont, I think it's trying to thread the lore from all four editions through itself and come out with something. Thematically, narratively, I think this thing resonates - it peels a bit more from 3e/4e, but "I'm a nice and reclusive giant!" isn't exactly super defining. Even their _Giantcraft_ description makes me groan as it gushes on about how generically Nice And Good these guys are. The only lore better than this so far has actually, IMO, been the 4e lore, though I think framing them as fey antagonists who invented the Wild Hunt is all unnecessary. These firbolgs can contain within them the story of 3e/2e/1e firbolgs with plenty of room to spare for being close to the fey, and finding them as 4e firbolgs wouldn't be entirely out of place, either.




Yeah, blending the Voadkyn with the Firbolg does make the Firbolg more distinct.  I do think the response has been largely positive, and generated more interest than either the 3e or 4e version.  I've already moved on to applying the moniker of "Voadkyn" to a ranger conclave (making it more like the 4e warden) which Firbolgs will be particularly suited for.




> And that's kind of a deeper issue in 5e in general, exhibited also with Goliaths. What people _want_ is to carry around a bit weapon and deal a ton of damage with it.




Yep, that has always been the appeal of the Firbolg.  I wanted to play a giant towering brute when I picked a Firbolg in the Complete Book of Humanoids, and 5e will never replicate that experience.  That is pretty much where the negative reaction is coming from by some of the long time players in this thread.

Speaking of Goliaths, I can't wait until I get to have a Firbolg drop this line. "My kind have no names, but you humans call me a 'Goliath'".


----------



## I'm A Banana

ferratus said:


> Yeah, blending the Voadkyn with the Firbolg does make the Firbolg more distinct.  I do think the response has been largely positive, and generated more interest than either the 3e or 4e version.  I've already moved on to applying the moniker of "Voadkyn" to a ranger conclave (making it more like the 4e warden) which Firbolgs will be particularly suited for.




It may not have been an accident that Voadkyn were quietly retired from the game after 2e, and 3e started the trend of Firbolgs picking up some of their traits. I don't think they popped up again in 3e or 4e at all in WotC products (though I think the _Tome of Horrors_ had a Voadkyn).

But, it may have also been an attempt to suppress *dat ass*
View attachment 77627

I'd personally make an attempt to bring back Voadkyn as their own thing, but that's cuz I'm a weirdo. I like the new Firbolgs, and I like that they expand the old ones without replacing the old ones.


----------



## Chaosmancer

ferratus said:


> Yep, that has always been the appeal of the Firbolg.  I wanted to play a giant towering brute when I picked a Firbolg in the Complete Book of Humanoids, and 5e will never replicate that experience.  That is pretty much where the negative reaction is coming from by some of the long time players in this thread.




Which honestly confuses me, I didn't realize having a race that could wield steel beams as a weapon was that big of a desire for people. 

I've seen the "I'm so strong I can wield a Greataxe in one-hand" concept before, but generally it was more important for people to be supernaturally strong (Belt of Storm Giant strength as an example) than them being towering beings.


I do think allowing a racial feat, or maybe a variant, to cover that sort of extreme weapon wielding would be a great inclusion though. 


Personally though, I like these guys a lot so far.



ferratus said:


> Speaking of Goliaths, I can't wait until I get to have a Firbolg drop this line. "My kind have no names, but you humans call me a 'Goliath'".




LOL, glad I wasn't the only one catching those vibes from the name section. "Does the River have a name?" "Yes, it's called the Brooklyn" "Then I'll be the Brooklyn" (Thinking, "Humans are crazy")


----------



## Demetrios1453

I'm A Banana said:


> It may not have been an accident that Voadkyn were quietly retired from the game after 2e, and 3e started the trend of Firbolgs picking up some of their traits. I don't think they popped up again in 3e or 4e at all in WotC products (though I think the _Tome of Horrors_ had a Voadkyn).
> 
> But, it may have also been an attempt to suppress *dat ass*
> View attachment 77627
> 
> I'd personally make an attempt to bring back Voadkyn as their own thing, but that's cuz I'm a weirdo. I like the new Firbolgs.





LOL

I think the fact that he's having so much trouble drawing that bow that his brain appears to be about to come bursting out the back of his head is more noticeable, actually....

But you are correct, no official post-2e D&D product ever featured or updated the voadkyn. It would still be nice to see them updated, but if blending them with firbolg to a point is what we end up with, I can live with that. After 20+ years virtual non-existence for the voadkyn, it can simply be handwaved away in-game (if it's even brought up at all) that previous monster chroniclers were confused or received bad intel that they were two different races. Although, as I said, it would be amusing to see the voadkyn updated in VGtM as well, just to see the discussion here...


----------



## Baumi

Isn't he a bit too strong?

Attributes are fine, but he got 3 (quite useful) spells per Short Rest and two additional smaller Abilities (Powerfull Built and Speech).


----------



## Baumi

My concern is not about the smaller Abilities, but with the 3 Spells per Short rest. Compare this to a Warlock, who receives 3 Spells/Rest only after the 11th Level, also these Spells are quite useful/strong.


----------



## Charles Rampant

Duergar, Drow, PHB Tieflings all get access to numerous spells per rest as well, and those are not typically described as overpowered. In practice, it seems that most people are more impressed by a relevant +2 stat bonus, a bonus feat, or bonus hit points, than by spell-like abilities.


----------



## Baumi

Entsuropi said:


> Duergar, Drow, PHB Tieflings all get access to numerous spells per rest as well, and those are not typically described as overpowered. In practice, it seems that most people are more impressed by a relevant +2 stat bonus, a bonus feat, or bonus hit points, than by spell-like abilities.




But thats an Argument for Firbolgs Spells being to strong , since all those other Races get the non-cantrip spells only at a higher level and these reset only on a long rest.


----------



## Charles Rampant

Well, maybe. I think that _Enlarge_ (giving more damage), _Hellish Rebuke_ (dealing damage as a reaction to a melee attack) and _Faerie Fire_ (favoured spell of powergamers everywhere, apparently) are rather more powerful and universally applicable than _Detect Magic_ (mainly used to determine whether a door is trapped) and _Disguise Self_ (used mainly to not look like a Firbolg, or for shenanigans in social adventures). I think that the Firbolg get more uses of less powerful spells, which seems... fair? 

To be clear, I'm not saying that _Detect Magic_ and _Disguise Self_ are bad spells, nor do I think that they'll never get used; I'm just saying that _Hellish Rebuke_, _Enlarge Self_ and _Faerie Fire_ are much stronger in the ways that will cause balance problems (i.e. combat).


----------



## Sunseeker

I've never had any interest in firbolgs at pretty much any point ever so this seems acceptable for what it is.


----------



## TwoSix

What would be the mechanical implications of making a Large PC race in 5e?  I know 5e doesn't have the stat and skill changing shenanigans of 3.X systems.  As far as I can tell, being Large would give you a 10'x10' space, and will make some spells not be able to affect you.  Does it impact things like weapon use and grappling?


----------



## SkidAce

ferratus said:


> Verbeegs are my absolute favourite giants.  They fight dirty, they whisper "suggestions" into the dimwitted heads of other giants making them more agressive, and are malformed malcontents who are constantly on the lookout for their next scheme.
> 
> A Verbeeg giant used properly can be the best middle manager of monsters your campaign ever had.




I like Fomorians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians


----------



## Yunru

So if I can carry and lift weapons as if I was one size larger... can I use those sweet double dice large weapons?


----------



## BookBarbarian

I'm A Banana said:


> Okay, let's do this:
> 
> 1e Firbolg:
> [sblock]
> View attachment 77619
> _source: Monster Manual 2_​*Story*
> They are cautious, crafty, and have considerable magical power. They have learned to distrust (and fear) humans, and will be found only in remote and wild places. They enjoy appearing as little people and duping humans out of their treasure. They gots shamans that also use illusion spells.
> 
> *Abilities*
> 
> Uses two-handed swords or halberds in one hand, or double-sized weapons that deal 2x damage.
> Deflect missiles 2/round
> SLA's: Detect Magic, Diminution (as a _potion of_, lets you shrink between 5% and, I guess, nothingness?), Fool's Gold (illusory gold), Forget (MiB memory-eraser), and Alter Self
> magic resistance
> [/sblock]
> 
> 2e firbolg:
> [sblock]
> View attachment 77620
> _sources: Monstrous Manual, Complete Book of Humanoids, Giantcraft_​
> *Story*
> 10 ft. + tall and 800+ lbs, long hair, thick beards, pink skin, blonde/red hair (very nordic!) with a smooth, thick, bass voice. Live in forests and hills, but like to stay remote. On good terms with druids and fey (including elves), but relationships are cold. Like to meet members of other races in disguise, and like to "prank" people out of their money. They've got a clan structure with a shaman, and live as gatherers or nomads. Meet 1/year at a great enclave of all the clans at the fall solstice - it's a big party that also helps settle clan disputes. They clear lots of trees (to make big houses and burn in their massive fireplaces). They trade their strength for food with their neighbors, hunt, gather, and have a small field. Not a lot of meat, but the parties have roasts. The like storm giants, fight against other giant-kin, avoid true giants, other intelligent creatures tend to leave them alone.
> 
> In the _Complete Book of Humanoids_ they are described as working together in their battles, adventuring to learn about magic and gain treasure.
> 
> In _Giantcraft_, we learn that in FR, they're not part of the Ordning, they're democratic (the vote!) and egalitarian (believing acts are more important than birth). They like a particular code they keep written and in an amulet. They're charitable, honest, believe in equality and sacrifice for one's people.
> 
> *Abilities*
> Basically the same as 1e. In the _Complete Book of Humanoids_, the SLA's can't be used in a fight, they "never wear armor of any sort, nor do they carry shields," they have an XP penalty (2x for Fighter, 3x for Shaman), and a fear of mobs. In _Giantcraft_, their lack of armor is because it is seen as "cowardly" to wear armor, and no one mentions their magic resistance.
> [/sblock]
> 
> 3e firbolg:
> [sblock]
> View attachment 77621
> _source: monster manual 2_​*Story*
> Basically the same: reclusive, crafty, good-natured giant-kin. Noted that they have druid leaders rather than shaman leaders (favored class: druid).
> 
> *Abilities*
> 
> Huckin' rocks and catching rocks
> Trample
> Fast healing (?!)
> SLA's: alter self, detect magic, _feeblemind_ (probably replacing _forget_) and _know direction_ (because druid?)
> [/sblock]
> 
> 4e firbolg:
> [sblock]
> View attachment 77624
> _source: monster manual 2_​*Story*
> Welp.
> 
> They live in the Feywild now, and they're unaligned. They're "agents of destiny, death, and the unforgiving wild." They created the Wild Hunt, and their lairs perch on precarious bits of rock (high peaks, floating earthmotes, etc.). They worship Sehanine, Melora, and the Raven Queen as three goddesses (Maiden, Mother, and Crone), and their preistesses are females called Moon Seers. They want promises from their enemies, not wealth or trophies. They can be called upon to hunt those who have broken oaths. They'll occasionally work with centaurs and their hunts are with hounds of the Wild Hunt.
> 
> *Abilities*
> 4e, so it depends on which "role" you're talkin' about. However, all had _moonfire_, which prohibits the target from benefitting from cover or concealment (kind of like a _faerie fire_ effect, I guess). They were vulnerable to Necrotic damage, which prohibited their regeneration (?!) from working.
> [/sblock]
> 
> ...and then we've got these dudes.
> 
> As is 5e's wont, I think it's trying to thread the lore from all four editions through itself and come out with something. Thematically, narratively, I think this thing resonates - it peels a bit more from 3e/4e, but "I'm a nice and reclusive giant!" isn't exactly super defining. Even their _Giantcraft_ description makes me groan as it gushes on about how generically Nice And Good these guys are. The only lore better than this so far has actually, IMO, been the 4e lore, though I think framing them as fey antagonists who invented the Wild Hunt is all unnecessary. These firbolgs can contain within them the story of 3e/2e/1e firbolgs with plenty of room to spare for being close to the fey, and finding them as 4e firbolgs wouldn't be entirely out of place, either.
> 
> Ability-wise....you know, they kept the SLA's that were consistent from 1e to 3e: something to change their appearance, and _detect magic_. They can't alter memory, make illusory money, slam your INT into the basement, line you in blue-white flames, or...know which way north is?...anymore, but those abilities don't seem too core to the critter. Knocking away items wasn't something 3e or 4e cared about at all.
> 
> The biggest change is making them Medium - no big weapons.
> 
> And that's kind of a deeper issue in 5e in general, exhibited also with Goliaths. What people _want_ is to carry around a bit weapon and deal a ton of damage with it. That's a bit much for a racial trait in 5e (well, it was probably a bit much for a racial trait in _any_ e...2e gave you XP penalties and deprived you of armor...3e had an ECL of +18 (woah!)).
> 
> That's a legit desire, though, and it's something I'd like to see mechanically addressed so that goliaths and firbolgs and our future Powerful Build races can all go around one-handing greatswords or whatever.
> 
> ...maybe a feat that has *powerful build* as a prerequisite that lets you do that. Or, even, a Fighter subclass, so our Goliath barbarians and Firbolg druids don't necessarily benefit.




Everything you said in this post is perfect. Well done, sir!


----------



## MechaTarrasque

It seems like there are a couple of races that would benefit from a Hulking feat (make size large and +1 to strength):  minotaurs, goliaths, firbolgs, not to mention orc+Hulking feat is practically an ogre (as in nasty tempered large dude(tte) that likes to hit things), and I suppose a dragonborn dragon bloodline sorcerer + Hulking feat is as close to a dragon as you are going to get until you get polymorph.


----------



## ferratus

I'm A Banana said:


> It may not have been an accident that Voadkyn were quietly retired from the game after 2e




Actually 3e had a sort of successor in the Forest Giant (MM2 I think), which looked like a green haired elf woman with small trees around her for scale.  Not as distinctive looking as the Voadkyn, so everyone promptly forgot about her.  A distinctive look is important for a monster.



> I'd personally make an attempt to bring back Voadkyn as their own thing, but that's cuz I'm a weirdo. I like the new Firbolgs, and I like that they expand the old ones without replacing the old ones.




If I was bringing back the Vosdkyn, I would probably bring them back as the 5e name for the 4e wilder.  Keep the lift/drag/carry as large ability, add some wilder plant abilities and I AM GROOT!


----------



## I'm A Banana

MechaTarrasque said:


> It seems like there are a couple of races that would benefit from a Hulking feat (make size large and +1 to strength):  minotaurs, goliaths, firbolgs, not to mention orc+Hulking feat is practically an ogre (as in nasty tempered large dude(tte) that likes to hit things), and I suppose a dragonborn dragon bloodline sorcerer + Hulking feat is as close to a dragon as you are going to get until you get polymorph.




I think the big barrier is being able to wield "weapons sized for Large creatures." Using the logic in the DMG, the Large Creature version of a weapon should deal an extra die of damage - so a Large Morningstar should deal 2d8 points of damage, and a Large Greataxe should deal 2d12. 

That's a *big* benefit. That's even...too big for a feat, I think (compare +1 STR). It's probably too big for a lot of Apprentice-tier class features. But it would be what you want to do as a Large/"Powerful Build" creature - to slam a 10-foot hunk of steel into some poor goblins or something. 

I think a subclass might be the most manageable, because you could rank up to that (maybe even start with simple Large weapons - +1d8 with a two-handed attack is probably viable!).

Sounds like I've got an idea for a Post-Volo DM's Guild product!


----------



## One_Shots

I'm A Banana said:


> That's a *big* benefit. That's even...too big for a feat, I think (compare +1 STR). It's probably too big for a lot of Apprentice-tier class features. But it would be what you want to do as a Large/"Powerful Build" creature - to slam a 10-foot hunk of steel into some poor goblins or something.



Which is one of the many reasons why firbolg should never have been considered as a playable race. What I really don't understand about this decision is that firbolg as a playable race simply wasn't something anyone was making any significant noise about, which makes the decision to shoehorn them into something acceptable within the bounds of player-race balance all that much more perplexing. About the only reason or justification I can come up with is that the author desperately wanted to do it, or that they were appealing to player nostalgia by using the name. Neither of which should make it all the way through design and development into a finished product. This in turn makes me wonder what else has gotten through and just how well this entire book has been considered, tested and balanced.

Maybe Hasbro should consider putting a little bit more money into Wizards of the Coast instead of making them justify cutbacks and increasing workloads to unsustainable and damaging levels so that the staff there can properly review and consider what actually makes it to print?


----------



## Connorsrpg

Taking it a bit far aren't we? Now the product may be untested and unbalanced b/c they changed the size of a firbolg.

Firbolgs (and half-firbolgs) have been a part of our campaign since its inception. We can work with this  TBH, back in the day, I liked voadkyn, but since have been happy for them not to be in game. If this is a combo of the two, then I say good move. Seriously don't need that many different giants (esp when they are similar).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

It reminds me of the Ogier in Wheel of time. Only frome the picture and the classes. Not the actual abilities.

As to size. Yeah, making them medium is a bolt move. But is 2ft really a reason to call a product unbalanced and untested? I would call it just the opposite. If firbolgs were large I would rather think it it would be untested and unbalanced.


----------



## TwoSix

shintashi said:


> i think the reluctance to build races and classes with flaws kind of guts the opportunity for variety at the expense of conforming to balance. So much effort to keep people from doing what averages 3-5 extra points of damage doesn't seem worth it.



3-5 points of damage is a pretty big deal for what's supposed to be a secondary characteristic for your character, after class choice.  I mean, there are major class features that only give 1-2 points of at-will damage, and a lot of them don't stack.  Larger weapon dice stacks with _everything_.


----------



## I'm A Banana

shintashi said:


> i think the reluctance to build races and classes with flaws kind of guts the opportunity for variety at the expense of conforming to balance. So much effort to keep people from doing what averages 3-5 extra points of damage doesn't seem worth it.



Swingy design like that (HUGE benefit, HUGE drawback) encourages min/maxing - folks do what they can to minimize the penalty.

Like, if 5e firbolgs had the old "no armor or shields" penalty, they'd just end up all being barbarians (wielding 2d12 greataxes) and monks (wielding 2d6 shortswords). Crits are also a concern there - a 2d12 greataxe crits for 4d12 damage!

In terms of balance, that's something that can replace *Extra Attack*, a defining level 5 feature of most martial classes. It's not tiny.


----------



## Mecheon

Plus the last time they made a Large race (In 3E of all things) I remember it working terribly

So terribly they invented Goliaths for the sheer purpose of sweeping it under the rug and trying another approach


----------



## TwoSix

I'm A Banana said:


> Swingy design like that (HUGE benefit, HUGE drawback) encourages min/maxing - folks do what they can to minimize the penalty.
> 
> Like, if 5e firbolgs had the old "no armor or shields" penalty, they'd just end up all being barbarians (wielding 2d12 greataxes) and monks (wielding 2d6 shortswords). Crits are also a concern there - a 2d12 greataxe crits for 4d12 damage!
> 
> In terms of balance, that's something that can replace *Extra Attack*, a defining level 5 feature of most martial classes. It's not tiny.



Just to be (needlessly) contrary, I don't think the weapon dice issue makes a Large size race impossible, but I think it would need to be made clear that rules for monster's weapons are not the same as weapon rules for PCs.  A 10' square and some bonuses to spell effects and grappling is probably OK, but double weapon damage isn't.


----------



## I'm A Banana

TwoSix said:


> Just to be (needlessly) contrary, I don't think the weapon dice issue makes a Large size race impossible, but I think it would need to be made clear that rules for monster's weapons are not the same as weapon rules for PCs.  A 10' square and some bonuses to spell effects and grappling is probably OK, but double weapon damage isn't.




Yeah, I think you could work with Large size sans double weapon damage mechanically.

But, there's a bit of a psychological hiccup - rather than being Medium size with a "powerful build" you'd be Large size with a "feeble build." - you couldn't pick up a weapon wielded by another Large creature and use it, for instance. Also, I think part of the appeal of a giantish race is getting to use a size of metal the length of your bed to beat your enemies about their face - if you get Large size without Large weapons, I don't know that you'd hit what a lot of folks are looking for. 

On the other hand, I might be underestimating the simple appeal of being Large. 

At any rate, "how do I include Large weapons in a balanced way" is definitely a big design challenge!


----------



## Faenor

They go too far in trying to avoid power creep. None of the post-phb races compete with the phb races. Half orcs are still by far the best fighter or barb race. Dwarves are still by far the best clerics. Etc. These subsequent races have minor situational and novelty, but overall, in a campaign with a variety of environments and foes that spans a wide level range, the phb races are by far the best.


----------



## TwoSix

I'm A Banana said:


> Yeah, I think you could work with Large size sans double weapon damage mechanically.
> 
> But, there's a bit of a psychological hiccup - rather than being Medium size with a "powerful build" you'd be Large size with a "feeble build." - you couldn't pick up a weapon wielded by another Large creature and use it, for instance. Also, I think part of the appeal of a giantish race is getting to use a size of metal the length of your bed to beat your enemies about their face - if you get Large size without Large weapons, I don't know that you'd hit what a lot of folks are looking for.
> 
> On the other hand, I might be underestimating the simple appeal of being Large.
> 
> At any rate, "how do I include Large weapons in a balanced way" is definitely a big design challenge!



I imagine you could do something like "Wielding a Large weapon lets you do +1 damage" or something.  It would involve a major psychological hurdle of weapon damage not being purely a property of the weapon, but rather a function of both the weapon and the wielder, and isn't really the way 5e works.  It IS pretty challenging!


----------



## ad_hoc

I'm A Banana said:


> Yeah, I think you could work with Large size sans double weapon damage mechanically.
> 
> But, there's a bit of a psychological hiccup - rather than being Medium size with a "powerful build" you'd be Large size with a "feeble build." - you couldn't pick up a weapon wielded by another Large creature and use it, for instance. Also, I think part of the appeal of a giantish race is getting to use a size of metal the length of your bed to beat your enemies about their face - if you get Large size without Large weapons, I don't know that you'd hit what a lot of folks are looking for.
> 
> On the other hand, I might be underestimating the simple appeal of being Large.
> 
> At any rate, "how do I include Large weapons in a balanced way" is definitely a big design challenge!





I just think it could be fun to play a large character, I don't need large weapons too.

It would be nice to be able to dual wield weapons bigger than daggers though.

I think Volo's was the perfect opportunity to put in some weird mechanics for player races. It's too bad they didn't work in being large.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Being able to use large weapons can be very unbalancing. I think it would also lock a race from being certain classes, as it makes it so there's even less of an incentive than there already is, to be a spellcaster.  

Feats or a fighting style related to being big might help for those picking the fighty-type classes, and that's as far as it should go.


----------



## dwayne

As to the size difference look at it as maybe this is the generation that has lost some of its sizes and got back to their roots and the larger versions were their ancestors. If you want the old version would be easy to do increase size, flip the bonuses, and remove the nature abilities maybe add a generic giant ability from the ones in the monster manual. Everything does not have to be printed in black an white to have fun be creative thats what its all about, I like it as options are always good for me as a GM.


----------



## BookBarbarian

I would have no problem handwaving the size change back to around 10 feet tall, but mechanically still treat them as Medium sized creatures with Powerful Build. I guess that might break verisimilitude for some, but I think it's much easier on the system to not have large PCs. I'd hate to have to DM for one.


----------



## Prakriti

dwayne said:


> As to the size difference look at it as maybe this is the generation that has lost some of its sizes and got back to their roots and the larger versions were their ancestors. If you want the old version would be easy to do increase size, flip the bonuses, and remove the nature abilities maybe add a generic giant ability from the ones in the monster manual. Everything does not have to be printed in black an white to have fun be creative thats what its all about, I like it as options are always good for me as a GM.



The same way that dogs are just wolves that decided to play nice. These firbolgs are the ones who can mix with other races. They're shorter and less reclusive. 

And it's not like there aren't already differences between adventurers and average people of the same race. Just compare PHB drow to MM drow.


----------



## I'm A Banana

It's also not mediocre in comparison to any other race's traits. It's very significant.

You do you, but that extra damage matters to a lot of tables, so I'm cool with WotC avoiding that.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

I'm A Banana said:


> At any rate, "how do I include Large weapons in a balanced way" is definitely a big design challenge!



I think you have to go for something like a level adjustment or racial class. If we look at, say, the 4 HD half-ogre, and compare it to what's reasonable for a 4th-level PC, I think they're within spitting distance of each other. We can even break it down into a pseudo-class table:

*Base:* +2 Str, +1 Con, darkvision
*1st:* 1d10 HD, Large size (carrying capacity)
*2nd:* 2d10 HD, Large size (10-foot space)
*3rd:* 3d10 HD, Large size (Large weapons)
*4th:* 4d10 HD, Ability Score Adjustment (+1 Str, +1 Con)

Given we're talking half-ogres, I'd probably throw -1 or -2 Intelligence into the adjustments for the flavor, but balancewise I don't think it's even necessary. I'd let a player roll a 1st-level half-ogre barbarian as a 5th-level character, no problem (assuming the story allowed it, of course).


----------



## Yunru

shintashi said:


> swingy balancy? Naw. That's just nonsense. Not because it wouldn't be swingy, but because it already is. Go ahead and white room the different classes at level 20.



Or... how about we _don't_ use the highest level in the game for a comparison, and actually use a level more relevant to racial abilities, maybe 1-5?

Now for _my_ bias I'm going to use Variant Humans, because they come closest to the suggested, with being able to take Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master.

At levels 1-4:

At the cost of their bonus action (and pretty much every other racial feature they could of had); 
A Polearm Master can make two attacks at level 1, one for 1d12+Mod and one for 1d4+Mod. Average of 15 damage.
A Crossbow Expert can make two attacks at level 1, both for 1d6+Mod (but at range). Average of 13 damage.

Without using their bonus action;
A large melee weapon user can make one attack at level 1, for 2d12+Mod damage. Average of 16 damage.
A large ranged weapon user can make one attack at level 1, for 2d10+Mod damage. Average of 14 damage.

At level 5:

At the cost of their bonus action (and pretty much every other racial feature they could of had); 
A Polearm Master can make three attacks at level 5, two for 1d12+Mod and one for 1d4+Mod. Average of 27.5 damage.
A Crossbow Expert can make three attacks at level 5, all for 1d6+Mod (but at range). Average of 22.5 damage.

Without using their bonus action;
A large melee weapon user can make two attacks at level 5, for 2d12+Mod damage. Average of 34 damage.
A large ranged weapon user can make two attacks at level 5, for 2d10+Mod damage. Average of 30 damage.

As you can see, both are straight up superior to their best counterparts, requiring less actions and dealing more damage.


----------



## Yunru

Yunru said:


> Or... how about we _don't_ use the highest level in the game for a comparison, and actually use a level more relevant to racial abilities, maybe 1-5?
> 
> Now for _my_ bias I'm going to use Variant Humans, because they come closest to the suggested, with being able to take Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master.
> 
> At levels 1-4:
> 
> At the cost of their bonus action (and pretty much every other racial feature they could of had);
> A Polearm Master can make two attacks at level 1, one for 1d12+Mod and one for 1d4+Mod. Average of 15 damage.
> A Crossbow Expert can make two attacks at level 1, both for 1d6+Mod (but at range). Average of 13 damage.
> 
> Without using their bonus action;
> A large melee weapon user can make one attack at level 1, for 2d12+Mod damage. Average of 16 damage.
> A large ranged weapon user can make one attack at level 1, for 2d10+Mod damage. Average of 14 damage.
> 
> At level 5:
> 
> At the cost of their bonus action (and pretty much every other racial feature they could of had);
> A Polearm Master can make three attacks at level 5, two for 1d12+Mod and one for 1d4+Mod. Average of 27.5 damage.
> A Crossbow Expert can make three attacks at level 5, all for 1d6+Mod (but at range). Average of 22.5 damage.
> 
> Without using their bonus action;
> A large melee weapon user can make two attacks at level 5, for 2d12+Mod damage. Average of 34 damage.
> A large ranged weapon user can make two attacks at level 5, for 2d10+Mod damage. Average of 30 damage.
> 
> As you can see, both are straight up superior to their best counterparts, requiring less actions and dealing more damage.



I'll stick with a Fighter who doesn't take feats (for simplicity, and to give and underestimate of Large weapons, since any race that has large weapons can pick up the feat anyway) and expand this to later levels.

Level 6-10:
Polearm Master: Two for 1d12+Mod. One for 1d4+Mod. Average 30.5 damage.
Crossbow Expert: Three for 1d6+Mod. Average 25.5 damage.
Large Melee: Two for 2d12+Mod. Average 36 damage.
Large Ranged: Two for 2d10+Mod. Average 32 damage.

Levels 11-19:
Polearm Master: Three for 1d12+Mod. One for 1d4+Mod. Average 42 damage.
Crossbow Expert: Four for 1d6+Mod. Average 34 damage.
Large Melee: Three for 2d12+Mod. Average 54 damage.
Large Ranged: Three for 2d10+Mod. Average 48 damage.

Level 20:
Polearm Master: Four for 1d12+Mod. One for 1d4+Mod. Average 53.5 damage.
Crossbow Expert: Five for 1d6+Mod. Average 42.5 damage.
Large Melee: Four for 2d12+Mod. Average 72 damage.
Large Ranged: Four for 2d10+Mod. Average 56 damage.


----------



## Yunru

shintashi said:


> Well, we could do cranky damage if we wanted, but again, i implied a flaw was necessary to pay for giant weapons.



And I proved it. The maths is simple, and much more effective than just speaking without proof.



> What did I prove? Nothing.



 QFT 

The difference, however, is you relied upon conditionals to make your assessments, whereas I eliminated as many conditionals as possible.
Thus yours can't have conclusions drawn from it, other than "there's too many variables to form a simple conclusion", whereas mine can.


----------



## Dargrimm

I actually like it quite a bit. Always loved fey themes and the Moonshaes is one of my favorite areas of Faerun... they're perfect for that!


----------



## TheCosmicKid

shintashi said:


> High level is like Old Age. You either die or  there's a 100% chance you get there.



Old age can't be thwarted by your gaming group breaking up or your DM getting burned out or your job taking you to a different city or happenstance ending your game in any one of countless other ways.


----------



## Yunru

shintashi said:


> not really. no one in my games uses crossbows or polearms, so your example seems more abstract and conditional than even mine.



That's not even an argument. "No-one uses it." doesn't mean it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it isn't the closest comparison that can be drawn, and doesn't mean it isn't still weaker than large weapons.



> And your argument is moot without considering my acceptance of a flaw to pay for the merit.



Excuse me? My entire point was that a flaw _would_ be needed. Learn to read.



> As to low level. Yes. at low level every numerical advantage seems inflated.
> 
> Then high level happens. By the time the wizard gets fireball, no one is going to care about some piddly extra dice.



Except everyone playing a weapon user, then it matters. And then it dominates all the options. Referring to completely irrelevant options doesn't change anything.


----------



## Chaosmancer

So... is the current argument that at High levels the extra damage isn't comparable to high level spells so its okay?

Here's my rather simple and perhaps too simple comparison.

Dwarf and Half-orc are supposedly balanced options for melee. They get relatively minor combat bonuses (mostly the orcs crit and drop to 1 instead of 0) while dwarf gets... poison resistance I guess? 

Chose Fighter or barbarian, it doesn't matter. Take goliath and Firbolg and replace powerful build and maybe 1 other ribbon with you are large and can use large weapons. They wade into combat.

longsword: Dwarf/Orc 1d8+mod   LArge creature: 2d8+mod

Greataxe: Dwarf/Orc 1d12+mod  Large Creature: 2d12+mod

Greatswrod: Dwarf/Orc 2d6+mod  LArge Creature: 4d6+mod

Just eyeballing it, Large creatures essentially hit with a standard double dice critical hit on every single attack. 

Essentially you are left with the PHB drow problem. You have to give a penalty that is so harsh, most people aren't going to want to play the race, because otherwise they are clearly better at combat than the other options.


----------



## Charles Rampant

I think that Yunru wins this round. 

Using large weapons is, for these lads and Goliaths, avoided by making them Medium. It also avoids very annoying problems like them not being able to enter taverns, having disadvantage all the time in dungeon combats, and generally being an arse to fit into the game.


----------



## Marandahir

I love this take on the Firbolg. 
Honestly does everything for me that I've wanted to try to work around my Goliath character. He's going to get a retweak!!!


----------



## Valetudo

Is it just me that thinks its weird that the wisdom gets a plus two and not strength?


----------



## I'm A Banana

shintashi said:


> I am not the one who needs to read my own posts. I have a rather elaborate explanation of the need of flaws. Have been an advocate of flaws forever. Giant weapons as a racial trait should be accompanied by flaws, but because of the fear of flaws, WOTC 5e doesn't have them. To which I object.
> 
> Simple.




The only flaw that really offsets being able to use Large weapons is a flaw that says "you can't actually use Large weapons." 

That's why that's the firbolg we got: it can't use Large weapons. 

Any other flaw - such as the 2e-style prohibition on armor - results in min/max situations ("I'm a firbolg barbarian, I don't wear armor!") or binary play ("glass tigers" that deal a lot of damage but die with a stiff breeze) or marshmallowing (like XP penalties or level offsets making you wait until higher levels to be more powerful than anyone else) or fiction prices for mechanical benefits (oh, I'm more powerful than anyone else in a fight, but I'm prohibited from entering any community of more than 50 individuals, good thing we're playing this dungeon crawl campaign, huh?) or other rather unfortunate effects.

Flaws in general also add a significant layer of complexity to character generation and gameplay. 

If you want that balance, go ahead and add it. If you think it works, I'd love to hear it! But, I wouldn't hold out for WotC to give it to you - racial flaws in general aren't a thing for some pretty good reasons, and it would probably require a pretty good reason to go back on that.


----------



## Selvarin

Flaws should be reasonable/logical, not punitive. I've seen in previous editions a +2 to abilities needed to be 'balanced' with -4 worth of penalties. Not +2/-2 but +2/-4.  Can't find something justifiable? Ram it in. Because the game designers  dictated it. They fought so hard for zero-sum game that they made the idea of playing some races distastefully impossible. 

Reality is...life ain't fair. Some choices just have more advantages..and some milder but logical downsides.

Taller than tall? Well you have more reach, you may even be stronger. But you're probably not built-for/agile enough to bounce from rooftop to rooftop. So there may be a Dex hit. And on and on it goes...


----------



## Remathilis

shintashi said:


> I am not the one who needs to read my own posts. I have a rather elaborate explanation of the need of flaws. Have been an advocate of flaws forever. Giant weapons as a racial trait should be accompanied by flaws, but because of the fear of flaws, WOTC 5e doesn't have them. To which I object.
> 
> Simple.



OK. 

Bonus: can use giant sized weapons. 
Penalty: vulnerable to piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.

Deal twice as much, take twice as much.


----------



## gantzerteo

Someone here miss so much Monkey Grip right?


----------



## I'm A Banana

Remathilis said:


> OK.
> 
> Bonus: can use giant sized weapons.
> Penalty: vulnerable to piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.
> 
> Deal twice as much, take twice as much.




If that works for you, great.

For me, I don't think it would work. I know if I saw that, I'd be seeing firbolg barbrians (resistance!) and firbolg fighters (high AC, so you can't hurt what you can't touch) aplenty. Even if the player didn't find a way around the weakness, we'd have firbolgs that are one or two-hit kills for most monsters which means a player spending more time rolling death saves than declaring actions. 

It falls into the min/max and paper tiger buckets.


----------



## Remathilis

I'm A Banana said:


> If that works for you, great.
> 
> For me, I don't think it would work. I know if I saw that, I'd be seeing firbolg barbrians (resistance!) and firbolg fighters (high AC, so you can't hurt what you can't touch) aplenty. Even if the player didn't find a way around the weakness, we'd have firbolgs that are one or two-hit kills for most monsters which means a player spending more time rolling death saves than declaring actions.
> 
> It falls into the min/max and paper tiger buckets.



It actually doesn't. I'm trying to show that flaws only create wonky, swingy systems ripe for abuse.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Remathilis said:


> It actually doesn't. I'm trying to show that flaws only create wonky, swingy systems ripe for abuse.




Ah! Too subtle for me!  Good illustration!


----------



## Jester David

Giant sized weapons could still work. It just shouldn't be the same as monster's giant weapons, where a second dice is added, since monsters and PC races no longer need to have symmetry, 

It could be something like "when you use a larger sized weapon the dice increases by one size" or "when you use a large sized weapon you deal an additional +1 (or +2) damage". 
Or limit it to Simple melee weapons and then double the die (or rather, you can wield Large Simple weapons as Martial weapons). The greatclub is still baller, doing 2d8, but with an average damage of 9, it's not that much higher than a greatsword's 7. Well within the power scope of a racial power.

This could even be a feat. Firbolg Weaponry.


----------



## Marandahir

Honestly, I'd prefer the feat to be limited to races with the Powerful Build feature rather than limited to the Firbolg race, since it would open the door for Goliaths to use it, as well as other pseudo-large races like the Unearthed Arcana Minotaur.


----------



## Yunru

Jester David said:


> Giant sized weapons could still work. It just shouldn't be the same as monster's giant weapons, where a second dice is added, since monsters and PC races no longer need to have symmetry,
> 
> It could be something like "when you use a larger sized weapon the dice increases by one size" or "when you use a large sized weapon you deal an additional +1 (or +2) damage".



And when the PC asks why (s)he can't use the Ogre's greatclub for 2d8 when it's clearly the same weapon wielded the same way?

While it's accurate to say there's no longer symmetry, that's because symmetry requires two different objects, whereas 5E's system has (partially) merged.


----------



## Jester David

Yunru said:


> And when the PC asks why (s)he can't use the Ogre's greatclub for 2d8 when it's clearly the same weapon wielded the same way?
> 
> While it's accurate to say there's no longer symmetry, that's because symmetry requires two different objects, whereas 5E's system has (partially) merged.



The answer to that is "because that's the rules" or "because balance". 

You can make up some handwavy explanation otherwise (not all Large weapons are sized the same, not enough mass to hit with as much force, not balanced for a creature your size) but at the end of the day you're still playing a game with rules. And a firbolg not being able to deal as much damage with an ogre club makes as much sense as the halfling fighter being able to wield the goliath barbarian's battleaxe without penalty. (If the halfling can do that, why can't the goliath weild the ogre's club for that matter?)

It comes down to what's more important: symmetry between monsters and PCs or player races having classical abilities?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

So, we have elves and gnomes for "normal" sized and small Fey, Firbolgs for forest giant types. 

IMO we still need Quicklings, wilden, and stuff like satyrs/fauns, sprites/pixies, dryads/nymphs, and maybe an elf or gnome subrace that's a bit more puck-like, maybe even a Puca. 
And something like hengeyokai. I can't really imagine a Fey campaign without them. 

Id be fine with a small supliment like heroes of the feywild, tho.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Jester David said:


> It comes down to what's more important: symmetry between monsters and PCs or player races having classical abilities?




Symmetry. There are a few rules that are important to be symmetric. Weapon damage is on of that, as is AC. I am already not so glad with challenge determining the roficiency bonus. Monsters usually lag 1 point behind if you compare PCs and NPCs.
I wished they had stayed with monster level instead of challenge. Or challenge defined as being able to stand up to a single PC instead of 4. That way, proficiency bonus would be equal on both sides. But that ship has sailed. 

I really don´t see a reason why firbolgs need to be 10 ft, when 8 ft is also really tall and still medium size. That is ok. The bugbear actually has a racial ability that emulates bigger weapons. I could see firbolgs having something similar as a racial ability... but being large and not being able to use large weapons sucks.


----------



## ccooke

I can see the basics of a feat for "Bigger than usual" medium humanoids. Something along these lines:

Strong Arm
_Pre-requisite: STR 15+_

* You count as one size category larger when making Strength[Athletics] checks
* When you use a one-handed melee weapon that does not have the _versatile_ property, it counts as a _light_ weapon
* When you use a melee weapon with the _versatile_ property in one hand, you may use the higher damage value as if you used two hands.

Basically - you're not Large, but you're noticeably larger than most Medium creatures and gain a few advantages. You can't wield something that's only designed to be used as a two-handed weapon with one hand, but you have a bit more flexibility with other weapons. You get a few more options for two-weapon fighting (basically, you can wield two 1d8 weapons), and you can deal a bit more damage going sword-and-board. The size category for Strength[Athletics] means you can be more effective grappling and shoving, whether you're doing it yourself or someone is doing it to you.

_[size=-2]Edited: Changed name of the feat to avoid using the same name as the racial trait[/size]_


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Why not allow the two handers in one hand, but at a decreased damage die, just like using a versatile weapon one handed vs two handed? 

Might cause problems with reach weapons, but still it shoudl be fine as a feat. 

i also like the idea of powerful build treating you as large for str checks AND hiding, but I don't like the idea of shoehorning a race, so ultimately I like what they did.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Jester David said:


> The answer to that is "because that's the rules" or "because balance".
> 
> You can make up some handwavy explanation otherwise (not all Large weapons are sized the same, not enough mass to hit with as much force, not balanced for a creature your size) but at the end of the day you're still playing a game with rules. And a firbolg not being able to deal as much damage with an ogre club makes as much sense as the halfling fighter being able to wield the goliath barbarian's battleaxe without penalty. (If the halfling can do that, why can't the goliath weild the ogre's club for that matter?)
> 
> It comes down to what's more important: symmetry between monsters and PCs or player races having classical abilities?




I'm not a fan of needless symmetry, but I'm less of a fan of needless complexity.

"You can use Large-sized weapons, but only these specific weapons, which are not the same as other Large-sized weapons...for *handwave*" is a lot more thorny than "you're not Large, so you can't use weapons made for Large creatures."


----------



## ccooke

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why not allow the two handers in one hand, but at a decreased damage die, just like using a versatile weapon one handed vs two handed?
> 
> Might cause problems with reach weapons, but still it shoudl be fine as a feat.
> 
> i also like the idea of powerful build treating you as large for str checks AND hiding, but I don't like the idea of shoehorning a race, so ultimately I like what they did.




Because that would be awfully complicated - there's no "natural" reduced die for each of the two handed weapons. In particular, reducing the die for Greataxe (d12) and Greatsword (2d12) without ruining the fine balance between them of reliability vs spike damage. If you make the Greataxe do d10, you'd need the greatsword to do 2d5... or 2d10/2. Awful and complicated. Or you break the linkage and then you're going to make one of them worse.

In the suggested feat, I made it affect only Strength[Athletics] because that's about the application of your strength - a little extra height and weight and some training to use it means you're a bit harder to knock down or grapple. It's uses the language that the bigger playable races get (count as one size category larger), but it provides a different effect to allow the feat to complement those races nicely.

That's not saying I think my quick feat idea is perfect, but I do think it's worth considering as a baseline


----------



## doctorbadwolf

ccooke said:


> Because that would be awfully complicated - there's no "natural" reduced die for each of the two handed weapons. In particular, reducing the die for Greataxe (d12) and Greatsword (2d12) without ruining the fine balance between them of reliability vs spike damage. If you make the Greataxe do d10, you'd need the greatsword to do 2d5... or 2d10/2. Awful and complicated. Or you break the linkage and then you're going to make one of them worse.
> 
> In the suggested feat, I made it affect only Strength[Athletics] because that's about the application of your strength - a little extra height and weight and some training to use it means you're a bit harder to knock down or grapple. It's uses the language that the bigger playable races get (count as one size category larger), but it provides a different effect to allow the feat to complement those races nicely.
> 
> That's not saying I think my quick feat idea is perfect, but I do think it's worth considering as a baseline




So, provide a progression in the feat. 

As for the great sword and great ax, I'm fine with one being very slightly better than the other in the very specific case of members of a few races who take a specific feat. 

Or, how about this. When they use such weapons two handed, they get a dice benefit, and do normal damage one handed?


----------



## Kobold Stew

Going back to answer an early rules questions that has been left hanging:



Prakriti said:


> Interesting wording on Hidden Step, though. It makes you invisible "...until you attack, make a damage roll, or* force someone to make a saving throw*." This is different from all other invisibility effects. I wonder why.




The main reason I see is that this wording includes the non-targetting attack cantrips that are in the cleric's and druid's repertoire. So "Sacred Flame" (e.g.) would also take out the invisibility from Hidden step.


----------



## dwayne

If a person were to play a large creature then as most big things they lack the dex to be nimble so give them a max dex or a penalty. But as playable races do not use penalties this would have to be a home brew thing. Also, play up the cost of armor and finding shelter as well as most common people may fear giants and the local sheriff and constabulary might take issue with him. Giant slayers and the group of bandits who think giants equate to large treasure. And everything is not sized for them, but in all the odds are against them as a playable race. I know anything with half a brain is going to take out the heavy fighter first and he would be a walking target. In the end, its all up to the GM and how they run the game but as always the rules are a guideline not an absolute the game is meant to be fun and enjoyable.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria

Kobold Stew said:


> The main reason I see is that this wording includes the non-targetting attack cantrips that are in the cleric's and druid's repertoire. So "Sacred Flame" (e.g.) would also take out the invisibility from Hidden step.



Most other forms of invisibility are broken if you attack or cast a spell, so the different phrasing in this case isn't creating a different result when casting _sacred flame_.

It is different because invisibility normally breaks if the invisible creature casts a spell that doesn't have anything to do with anyone else, such as _mage armor_ or _false life_, or that is entire beneficial like _cure wounds_ - but the firbolg's invisibility from this racial feature would stay in place through casting all of these spells.


----------



## Kobold Stew

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Most other forms of invisibility are broken if you attack or cast a spell, so the different phrasing in this case isn't creating a different result when casting _sacred flame_.
> 
> It is different because invisibility normally breaks if the invisible creature casts a spell that doesn't have anything to do with anyone else, such as _mage armor_ or _false life_, or that is entire beneficial like _cure wounds_ - but the firbolg's invisibility from this racial feature would stay in place through casting all of these spells.




Exactly true -- and much clearer than my explanation.


----------



## CapnZapp

One_Shots said:


> Why put in a race that diverges so significantly from the original other than to pander to nostalgia? Why not create new races or utilise the plethora of other available options if they want to fill a book?
> 
> Firbolg have been 10 ft. tall since 1e and in every other edition. They've always been of a large size and, in fact, one of their special abilities has always been to shrink down a size. It's really just absurd to shoehorn them into a medium build so that they'll be a playable race.



Choose:

Either no playable firbolgs. Or firbolgs small enough to count as medium-sized.

If you value their size more than their playability, you can easily ban the race and then make any Firbolg NPCs large. Or you can (still quite easily) change the Firbolg into a Large creature. 

Just don't expect WotC to assume other DMs can and want to handle all the fall-out from having Large player characters (squeezing issues; Huge monster no longer immune to grappler builds and so on).


----------



## CapnZapp

Prakriti said:


> Interesting wording on Hidden Step, though. It makes you invisible "...until you attack, make a damage roll, or* force someone to make a saving throw*." This is different from all other invisibility effects. I wonder why.



I can't speak for "all other" effects, but the Invisibility spell ends when you attack or cast a spell. 

This wording is much better (since it allows you to cast spells just as long as nobody is attacked, damaged or made to save). 

I wonder if it presages a general change. (That is, a future official change in how Invis works)


----------



## CapnZapp

flametitan said:


> There's currently no explicit bonus to being large



Off the top of my head I can think of two things. 

Large weapons (significant damage increase*) and ability to grapple huge creatures (significantly reducing the number of grapple-immune foes).

*) I can't actually find a rule that governs how damage changes with the size of weapons. There's nothing in the Equipment chapter of the PHB. The MM talks about how size changes your hit dice, but not your weapon dice. The DMG does say you double the damage dice for a weapon wielded by a Large creature, but it is far from obvious this should apply to player characters. After all, the Enlarge spell makes PCs Large but only allows +1d4 damage. 

And on the downside (just as you say), the inability to follow the rest of the party through cramped environments. (Of course this is not a big deal if you have an ability to shrink, or if your DM allows access to those Underdark fungus detailed in Out of the Abyss). I guess another downside (at least for the first few levels) is that you can't actually block goblins and other small creatures.


----------



## CapnZapp

One_Shots said:


> play upon nostalgia



What makes you think this isn't a major deciding factor?


----------



## CapnZapp

flametitan said:


> It helps that the Firbolg was given a unique identity beyond "Tall human," even if it did divert from the original lore, while the Goliath was stuck for the most part with the "Tall competitive people."



I'll give all the sceptics this:

I am having trouble understanding why so many people apparently want to play "big" characters that WotC are issuing not only one, but two, such options.

I mean, if I want to play a savage muscle-beast, I can play a Half-Orc.

If I truly wanted to play a "big" character I would not settle for a faux-big choice. I would need a truly Large option.

The Goliath as presented in the EEPC had nothing that I didn't dismiss as "a Dwarf, only bigger, and thus, goofier".

At least this repurposed Firbolg does have a few significant schticks that give it a true niche. It is a nature race. With racial bonuses that actually support any "Many Firbolgs are Cleric or Druids" claims. And some interesting other stuff. 

And by not being actually Large it neatly sidesteps the entire "but why play a Large creature if your build isn't actually benefiting from that?" issue. By this I mean that you don't actually gain anything from being Large if you're a spellcaster. It's only if you play a Strength-based fighter you actually draw any benefit from being Large. Otherwise the quality of being Large is mostly an inconvenience.


----------



## gyor

I noted the Firbolgs are better at Disguise then Changelings. I can see Firbolgs being very fun to play.

 Maybe a Paladin of the Ancients Oath or Beast Master Ranger. It'd be fun. Being about to share disguise self with your mount or animal companion would be cool.

 Firbolg Assassins/spies would be interesting.


----------



## gyor

cbwjm said:


> I had to go back and check the changling and I have to say, the Firbolg is not better than them at disguise. For the changeling, it is a physical change; the firbolg's is an illusion and can be seen through with an intelligence/investigation check. It also only lasts an hour and requires the firbolg to have at least a short rest to recharge it. The changling is a physical change, so it can't be seen through. It is an at will action to change, they do not have to rest to recharge, and it lasts essentially forever. They also have proficiency in deception as a racial ability.
> 
> A changeling is far superior at disguise than a firbolg for anything long term or with preparation and I would prefer a changeling as an infiltrator.
> The firbolg's disguise self is useful only in that it can also change the appearance of their clothes with their new disguise. However, they are unable to change their appearance again during the duration of the spell.




 The Firbolg doesn't need to just happen to have the right outfit or armour to take an identity, in practice Changelings are going to be hard to use, any use that is greater then an hour during an adventure is likely going to derail the adventure, and the Firbolg is more then a one trick pony.


----------



## SkidAce

/tangent

Changelings should not be as effective as Doppelgangers at disguise.

But better than Firbolgs in most situations.

IMHO.


----------



## gyor

I've suggested at will Alter Self as a way to make Changelings more workable, but able to copy peoples forms.

 Anyways Firblogs seem fun.


----------



## Zardnaar

CapnZapp said:


> Off the top of my head I can think of two things.
> 
> Large weapons (significant damage increase*) and ability to grapple huge creatures (significantly reducing the number of grapple-immune foes).
> 
> *) I can't actually find a rule that governs how damage changes with the size of weapons. There's nothing in the Equipment chapter of the PHB. The MM talks about how size changes your hit dice, but not your weapon dice. The DMG does say you double the damage dice for a weapon wielded by a Large creature, but it is far from obvious this should apply to player characters. After all, the Enlarge spell makes PCs Large but only allows +1d4 damage.
> 
> And on the downside (just as you say), the inability to follow the rest of the party through cramped environments. (Of course this is not a big deal if you have an ability to shrink, or if your DM allows access to those Underdark fungus detailed in Out of the Abyss). I guess another downside (at least for the first few levels) is that you can't actually block goblins and other small creatures.




Shield master feat would also let you knock huge creatures prone. I have done this with enlarge spell.


----------

