# Fire Giant Dreadnoughts in VOLO's GUIDE TO MONSTERS



## CapnZapp (Oct 14, 2016)

If this is a beefed up Fire Giant, it allows me a glimmer of hope. 

We need many more beefed-up variants of existing Monster Manual monsters!


----------



## Henry (Oct 14, 2016)

WHAT THE HECK is that thing's AC??


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 14, 2016)

Henry said:


> WHAT THE HECK is that thing's AC??




All of it.  All of the numbers.


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 14, 2016)

The other giants call him Arthur "Two Shields" Jackson.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 14, 2016)

I can already see the calls for "my Gnome Barbarian uses two shields"


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 14, 2016)

I just noticed the shields are curved, and they appear to be internally heated. Maybe this guy's job is to plow snow during the winter?


----------



## MonkeyWrench (Oct 14, 2016)

Henry said:


> WHAT THE HECK is that thing's AC??




What's its strength score to support all that armor?!


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 14, 2016)

Oh dear.  Let's hope this isn't indicative of the direction they are taking their content as a whole.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 14, 2016)

MonkeyWrench said:


> What's its strength score to support all that armor?!




Probably less than what it has, but I guarantee that question was never asked.  From the drawing, each shield weighs about 8000lb.  Heavy load for a fire giant is something like 5000lb.  It's carrying two shields AND wearing thick bulky armor.  Forget realism.  Under the game rules, that giant ought not be able to even budge itself from its place, and would require aid just to free itself from the prison of armor its been placed in.


----------



## Ghost2020 (Oct 14, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Oh dear.  Let's hope this isn't indicative of the direction they are taking their content as a whole.




Agreed. That doesn't look like anything that I would want.


----------



## MNblockhead (Oct 14, 2016)

Ghost2020 said:


> Agreed. That doesn't look like anything that I would want.




Why? What do you want?


----------



## UnknownDyson (Oct 14, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Oh dear.  Let's hope this isn't indicative of the direction they are taking their content as a whole.




Why are you hating?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 14, 2016)

UnknownDyson said:


> Why are you hating?




Because I'm a highly critical curmudgeon that demands things be made to a high standard.  

I'm not actually hating anyone, I just would have, as an editor, product owner, or art director sent that back as unacceptable poorly thought out work.   I don't mean to seem hateful about it, but criticism is a part of the refining process.  You put out your stuff.  It gets kicked around.  You get angry.   Then you sit down and you try again until you get something that has passed through the fire so many times it's pure gold or at least brass-plated and bulletproof.

However, if you want to defend the artistry, feel free to stand up for what you believe in.   I might argue with you.  I might think you are full of crap.   I might end up thinking you have no taste.   But I'm not going to respect you less for disagreeing, and I'm certainly not going to hate you for it.

Let me put it too you this way.  Suppose you wrote a fantasy novel, and knowing as you do that people will judge a book by its cover, would you want that image to in any way represent your book?  Suppose you were writing for an audience that you know spanned everything from 12 year olds, to 60 year old HEMA experts.  Would you want your work represented to that audience by that?  Hitherto, a lot of the 5e aesthetic harkened back to the better elements of 2e art - which I consider the high point for D&D (though I like the old school ink drawings as well).   This however looks like it escaped from the worst of the 3e/4e era: all the sloppiness of 3e art, combined with all the unreality of 4e art.   And that's not even to get into the fact that the art is representing something in the fictional world that is just plain silly.


----------



## Leatherhead (Oct 14, 2016)

What do you think the shields are made out of?

I figure Obsidian, cause of lava magic.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 14, 2016)

Leatherhead said:


> What do you think the shields are made out of?
> 
> I figure Obsidian, cause of lava magic.




Oh, don't ask questions like that.  It's just going to make it worse.  Granted, if the shields are made of glass, they do weigh a good deal less - but then you have a shield made of glass. Also, it seems to be made of the same stuff as the boots and likely the armor.  But, what is that hauberk or gambeson or breastplate (or whatever it is) made out of?   Iron, as it appears if you look at the top of it, or some sort of cloth, like it appears if you look at the bottom?   And why does it need to be belted?  The belt doesn't support anything.  It doesn't close anything.  And why did this giant that just decked himself out in 20000 lbs of whatever, feel that his braid had to flip out in front of his head so badly, he was willing to cut a gaping hole in his neck protection to let it dangle down.  And for that matter, exactly what is the braid attached to?


----------



## Leatherhead (Oct 14, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Oh, don't ask questions like that.  It's just going to make it worse.  Granted, if the shields are made of glass, they do weigh a good deal less - but then you have a shield made of glass. Also, it seems to be made of the same stuff as the boots and likely the armor.  But, what is that hauberk or gambeson or breastplate (or whatever it is) made out of?   Iron, as it appears if you look at the top of it, or some sort of cloth, like it appears if you look at the bottom?   And why does it need to be belted?  The belt doesn't support anything.  It doesn't close anything.  And why did this giant that just decked himself out in 20000 lbs of whatever, feel that his braid had to flip out in front of his head so badly, he was willing to cut a gaping hole in his neck protection to let it dangle down.  And for that matter, exactly what is the braid attached to?




Considering all the information, I'm guessing it's made out of lava. Magic lava that can assume the properties of a solid or liquid as necessary.


----------



## UnknownDyson (Oct 14, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Because I'm a highly critical curmudgeon that demands things be made to a high standard.
> 
> I'm not actually hating anyone, I just would have, as an editor, product owner, or art director sent that back as unacceptable poorly thought out work.   I don't mean to seem hateful about it, but criticism is a part of the refining process.  You put out your stuff.  It gets kicked around.  You get angry.   Then you sit down and you try again until you get something that has passed through the fire so many times it's pure gold or at least brass-plated and bulletproof.
> 
> ...




Ok, I'm starting to get where you are coming from. My next question is  what don't you like about the fire giant dreadnought specifically? I  think he looks amazing. And as far as reality goes........ he could  easily be a chosen of Surtur or some other ridiculously powerful  supernatural character.


----------



## MonkeyWrench (Oct 14, 2016)

UnknownDyson said:


> Ok, I'm starting to get where you are coming from. My next question is  what don't you like about the fire giant dreadnought specifically? I  think he looks amazing. And as far as reality goes........ he could  easily be a chosen of Surtur or some other ridiculously powerful  supernatural character.




I can't speak for Celebrim, but I do share the same sentiment. I don't like the fact that based on the depiction, it looks like the giant would be crushed beneath the weight of all that metal armor. For me, "it's magic" doesn't cut it as an answer for why the giant isn't straining under all that weight.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 14, 2016)

UnknownDyson said:


> Ok, I'm starting to get where you are coming from. My next question is  what don't you like about the fire giant dreadnought specifically?




I've already outlined a lot of problems, but in bullet point form:

a) The figure has absolutely no dynamism to it.  Yes, I know they are trying to emphasize the figures immobility, but they have done so to the point that it looks immobile not in a good way.  I mean what it mostly brings out for me is that it is made of paint.  Static.  Unreal.  One dimensional. 
b) The armor on the character is outlandish.  The larger the character, the thinner the armor should be in proportion to the figure, and the more tailored it should be to protecting only the figures critical points.  Also, regardless of the size of the figure, the armor should be made so as to deflect blows - not trap them.  All those spiky bits are ridiculous.  Everything is way too ponderous.
c)  Fighting with two tower shields (one in each hand) is ridiculous.  Whenever something has not been a thing in real life, there is a good chance that there are good reasons why.  Now, for a brief period in the early bronze age, it was a thing to fight with a tower shield on your back and another in one hand.  But they only did that because they hadn't yet gotten good at working bronze into finely shaped curves so that you could make well-fitted and flexible armor.   Again, the immobility of the figure is emphasized, but to the point that makes the figure seem trapped or confined, as if it would struggle to pick up and wield the "weapons" it's been equipped with.  I struggle to imagine this creature doing anything.
d) The ultimate effect for me looking at the figure is that it engenders pity.  I imagine in my mind its being tortured by being forced to wear this crushing weight and strapped to this insanely heavy mantlets as a means of humiliating, torturing, and ultimately killing it.  The images conjured to my mind aren't of a fearsome warrior, but an criminal being crushed beneath a heavy cangue or the man in the iron mask.  Trapped beneath all that steal, unable to move, unable to feed itself, scarcely able to breathe, it's spine being crushed by the thousands of pounds forcing down on its shoulders.  That's what this image does for me.  It makes me want to rescue the poor hapless creature, and hopefully there is a cleric in our party.
e) What's with that braid?



> I  think he looks amazing. And as far as reality goes........ he could  easily be a chosen of Surtur or some other ridiculously powerful  supernatural character.




Yeah, that's unintentionally a really good idea.  Google up "Surtur" or "Surtr D&D" or just "fire giant" and compare the images with this thing.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 14, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> c)  Fighting with two tower shields (one in each hand) is ridiculous.



Yup. This.

Fire giant dreadnoughts go in the Silly Bucket with flumphs and gelatinous cubes. If I'm running a lighthearted campaign full of wacky absurdity, I'll certainly bust out the dreadnoughts. But anything that requires a serious atmosphere, they're right out.


----------



## LordEntrails (Oct 15, 2016)

My first impression was, "Hey, unless some idiot is going to charge one of those immovable shields and jump on a spike, it's never going to hurt anyone."

My second impression was, "Any dwarf is going to walk up to that thing and cut it's nuts off with one swing as it stands unable to move."


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 15, 2016)

I don't know...I think that folks are attempting to apply too much logic to a fantastic foe. I think it's pretty cool looking, and going solely on the art, I can kind of imagine its purpose. The name certainly implies plenty. 

We'll have to see what kind of lore they give this thing. But based just on the art, I dig it.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 15, 2016)

MonkeyWrench said:


> I can't speak for Celebrim, but I do share the same sentiment. I don't like the fact that based on the depiction, it looks like the giant would be crushed beneath the weight of all that metal armor. For me, "it's magic" doesn't cut it as an answer for why the giant isn't straining under all that weight.



Agreed.

Actually, my first thought had little to do with the absurdity of carrying a small destroyer on each arm, other than indirectly. It was that the fire giant had just left himself in a position where a smaller race -- say, dwarf, well known for fighting giants -- could easily skate between his shields and legs and shoot a crossbow bolt at his under-armored nether regions. Give him a dwarf or two on each side, and they can wolf pack him in no time flat because he can't actually turn quickly enough to face them, but trying to do so would require moving the shields into an unusable position leaving him even more open. He makes a mighty cool looking snow plow, but he's a bit absurd as anything other than a sitting duck in combat. That can all be chalked up to the WotC team having a dumb idea and the artist just doing what he was paid to do.

As far as the art goes.... I'm not a particular fan of the no background thing. It's fine, if the image is set with text around it, but always looks horrible, stand alone. You can get away with it -- and it often looks cool -- if it's a stick and ink sketch, but that's about it.

That aside, the coloring looks flat and weird. The helmet doesn't look like it's sitting on a head so much as the face looks like one of those 1980s He Man toys that had the face printed on the helmet. The braid looks like it's either glued to the cheek guard or is floating is space in front of it (again, the artist seems to have a problem conveying depth). If the left armor were consistent with the shape of the right, there's no way the giant could hold the shield that close. The right shield appears to be shaped differently than the left because the bottom flairs up in back, indicating the front is closer to the ground, but the top also appears to be leaning back. I hadn't consciously realized just how much difficulty the artist had with perspective until I started trying to figure out why the picture looked "wrong", but it's pretty far out of whack.  Even the shadow is off a bit: only the shields cast a shadow, but the the left shield shadow angles back, across the giant, while the right shield shadow comes more or less straight down (possibly forward, just slightly). Meanwhile, the actual objects (giant, shields) appear lit as though the light source is directly in front of them -- with the lower body lit slightly from the giant's right (look at where the shadow is) and the head area slightly from his left (his right boot actually seems to be lit by a night light mounted on the inside bottom of his left shield) and the braid must be lit by the firelight from his nostril because it's well lit even when it should be shaded by the collar that's lit from the side.

Finally, if you want something else, I have no idea what the armor is made of. The spiky top and jutting collar, as well as the juggernaut motif, make me think it's metal. The ragged edges at the bottom make me thing leather or even cloth. The ridges imply that it's layered, but I'm not sure what lays like that -- strong, distinct ridges at the top but sloppy, worn ridges at the bottom. Once you throw the weird gray into the mix, the overall impression I'm left with is that he's wearing some sort of spider silk. That's kind of a cool idea, in a fantasy world, but it really doesn't gel with the rest of the vibe.

Could I do better? Probably not, especially in color. But, I'm not trying to sell my stuff to the biggest RPG on the market. This is not what I'd use as a promo picture. It really belongs on a second or third tier Kickstarter game. The artist has some ability, probably enough enough to warrant pursuing a career in art. Unless D&D is such a rounding error for WotC/Hasbro that they're now using it to farm future talent for illustrating Magic cards, they shouldn't have used this picture.


----------



## gyor (Oct 15, 2016)

LordEntrails said:


> My first impression was, "Hey, unless some idiot is going to charge one of those immovable shields and jump on a spike, it's never going to hurt anyone."
> 
> My second impression was, "Any dwarf is going to walk up to that thing and cut it's nuts off with one swing as it stands unable to move."




 Those shields aren't immovable, slap them side by side and plow forward with the full strength of a Fire Giant, watch as it scoops up enemies and crushes them into stuff. Think snow plow.


----------



## gyor (Oct 15, 2016)

Dausuul said:


> Yup. This.
> 
> Fire giant dreadnoughts go in the Silly Bucket with flumphs and gelatinous cubes. If I'm running a lighthearted campaign full of wacky absurdity, I'll certainly bust out the dreadnoughts. But anything that requires a serious atmosphere, they're right out.




 Arrgggg, they're not for two weapon fighting like swords, hammers, or axes. They're meant to acts as a plow, look at the scoop at the bottoms of the shields, they literally plow through enemies, look I work in the snow removal business and its obvious what a Red Giant Dreadnaught would be on the battle field. She don't dual weild them, you hold them both in front of you, and bull rush through enemies forces, while her allies follow her after, mopping up the now confused enemy who has holes in his lines thanks to the Fire Giant Dreadnaught.


----------



## gyor (Oct 15, 2016)

MonkeyWrench said:


> I can't speak for Celebrim, but I do share the same sentiment. I don't like the fact that based on the depiction, it looks like the giant would be crushed beneath the weight of all that metal armor. For me, "it's magic" doesn't cut it as an answer for why the giant isn't straining under all that weight.




 The Giant has been specially trained for the task, which would include strength training.


----------



## Leatherhead (Oct 15, 2016)

I don't understand the complaint about the stance. It invokes the image of a posed painting, not a combat action photo. Of course the giant wouldn't be fighting like that.


----------



## gantzerteo (Oct 15, 2016)

Dausuul said:


> Yup. This.
> 
> Fire giant dreadnoughts go in the Silly Bucket with flumphs and gelatinous cubes. If I'm running a lighthearted campaign full of wacky absurdity, I'll certainly bust out the dreadnoughts. But anything that requires a serious atmosphere, they're right out.



Sorry but Flumphs and Gelatinous Cube are different cases since they exisist since ages in D&D lore.


----------



## Fralex (Oct 15, 2016)

Dausuul said:


> Fire giant dreadnoughts go in the Silly Bucket with flumphs and gelatinous cubes.



Hey, flumphs have feelings, too! I bet from their point of view, WE'RE the silly ones, because we lack so many limbs and can't even hover with our flatulence.

It's fine about the gelatinous cubes, though. I'm like 90% sure they don't let stuff like this get to them. They're pretty emotionally resilient.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 15, 2016)

gantzerteo said:


> Sorry but Flumphs and Gelatinous Cube are different cases since they exisist since ages in D&D lore.



And for all of those ages, they have lived in the Silly Bucket. Now they get company.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 15, 2016)

gyor said:


> Arrgggg, they're not for two weapon fighting like swords, hammers, or axes. They're meant to acts as a plow, look at the scoop at the bottoms of the shields, they literally plow through enemies, look I work in the snow removal business and its obvious what a Red Giant Dreadnaught would be on the battle field. She don't dual weild them, you hold them both in front of you, and bull rush through enemies forces, while her allies follow her after, mopping up the now confused enemy who has holes in his lines thanks to the Fire Giant Dreadnaught.




^ This.


I wonder how many giant variants we'll be getting? I'm hoping 2 or 3 for each subtype - say a chief type, a magic-using type or types, and some interesting oddballs like this one....


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 15, 2016)

This is Metal.

1980's Van Art Man approves.


----------



## barrowwight (Oct 15, 2016)

The armor reminds me of a Bulette's hide for some reason. The shields could be adamantium plated wood or bone. I like the idea of them being crafted from carved then enchanted bone from a some sort of magma dragon.


----------



## Mavkatzer (Oct 15, 2016)

I like the concept of a giant (or giants) plowing though groups of enemies.  I can envision many glorious scenes and RPG scenarios with that!  I LOVE GIANTS!!!!!

But I agree with the criticisms of the art, in that it evokes all that I did not like in 3E and 4E art: no background; lost perspective; wildly over developed, inconsistent, and impractical armor style; non communicating face and posture; and an odd and un-engaging color scheme.

I want to be clear that I am not criticizing the talent of the artist.  I respect the artist's skill very much.  I am expressing a personal preference for style, in that this does not inspire ME in creating or running an adventure.  And since I LOVE GIANTS SO MUCH, I felt obligated to chime in by my heathen gods.  May they or you forgive me if I go too far...


----------



## Dualazi (Oct 15, 2016)

Guess I'll be one of the dissenting parties and say that this actually increases my interest in Volo's, since it appears that there will be some actual creativity in the monster presentation. Hopefully this guy has some cool mechanical concepts in play and isn't just amped up AC/HP.

I find most of the realism arguments to be frankly disingenuous. Realism has never been particularly important in a magical setting with magical creatures and magical substances. The armor could be strengthened glass or obsidian, the giant could be supernaturally strong, the rules printed for carry capacity could be in relation to medium humanoids and not giants, the list goes on and on and on. I would rather have fantastic, evocative and outlandish armor and weapon designs any day over droll attempts at historical accuracy (which baseline D&D fails at innately), especially in light of how high-magic all the settings are by virtue of the caster classes. I will, however, agree that some backgrounds and environments wouldn't go amiss.

More in relation to the giant specifically, I can totally see this guy being used mainly in subterranean tunnels, where he can create impassable choke points or march down the tunnels himself and grind opponents to death. He's basically crushing walls in monster form.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 15, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Probably less than what it has, but I guarantee that question was never asked.  From the drawing, each shield weighs about 8000lb.  Heavy load for a fire giant is something like 5000lb.  It's carrying two shields AND wearing thick bulky armor.  Forget realism.  Under the game rules, that giant ought not be able to even budge itself from its place, and would require aid just to free itself from the prison of armor its been placed in.




The problem with this argument is that it presupposes that fire giants themselves are inherently physically and biologically plausible, which they aren't. A fire giant, or any giant for that matter, even without armor, should have their own legs shatter under the stress of their own weight (they obviously have human-type leg bones and not the elephant-like leg bones they would need to carry their own weight). Moreover, any large warm-blooded creature has to deal with the surface area/volume problem, wherein, as a creature gets larger in size, its surface area grows by units squared while its volume grows by units cubed. This means that heat radiation becomes more inefficient with size, getting to a point where a large warm-blooded creature fries its own biological processes since it can't get rid of the heat it's producing fast enough. And, given that fire giants are fire-based creatures, this problem would be massively exacerbated, meaning that any reality-based fire giant would rapidly overheat and die. For a fire giant to even exist we would have to presuppose a non-standard biology, and, once that becomes a given, any questions on physical limitations goes out the window. So, until we have a detailed examination of fire giant biology that would contradict it, we have to assume that fire giants are able to carry the weight of that armor and those shields...


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 15, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Because I'm a highly critical curmudgeon that demands things be made to a high standard.
> 
> I'm not actually hating anyone, I just would have, as an editor, product owner, or art director sent that back as unacceptable poorly thought out work.   I don't mean to seem hateful about it, but criticism is a part of the refining process.  You put out your stuff.  It gets kicked around.  You get angry.   Then you sit down and you try again until you get something that has passed through the fire so many times it's pure gold or at least brass-plated and bulletproof.
> 
> ...




That was a long winded answer to say " I don't like the style."  Perhaps you should pass your comments through your editor


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 15, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> .  Granted, if the shields are made of glass, they do weigh a good deal less - but then you have a shield made of glass.




To clarify, he said Obsidian and though it looks somewhat like glass it is most definitely not glass


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 15, 2016)

MonkeyWrench said:


> I can't speak for Celebrim, but I do share the same sentiment. I don't like the fact that based on the depiction, it looks like the giant would be crushed beneath the weight of all that metal armor. For me, "it's magic" doesn't cut it as an answer for why the giant isn't straining under all that weight.




Why is "magic" not a sufficient answer? It explains why dragons fly (even more ridiculous than this image), Thor can wield Mjolnir, and giants can stand, among a great many other things in D&D.


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 15, 2016)

It's not the best piece of D&D art ever, but arguments about the feasibility of the giant's armor seem strange to me. Giants are OTT fairy-tale (or Marvel Universe) monsters to begin with, nothing about them makes "sense."

My read on the piece is that this is a very specialized soldier whose job is to hold and/or advance a line, probably as part of a massive wall of other such soldiers. The pose suggests he's standing at attention waiting for orders.

I agree that a character standing around floating in space with no context is dull composition, unless it's intended as a portrait of "This is what this guy looks like." Cover or spread-worthy? Not really. Fine as a bit of filler art.

-The Gneech


----------



## Barachiel (Oct 15, 2016)

What weight? Magically enchanted. Done. Moving on. 

The only thing I agree with is the braid.

The rest to me says BAMF and, well, that's the idea of warriors these days. Gotta look and move as flashy as a spellcaster throwing visual spells in order to get attention. Played any RPGs lately? Watched any anime? No one cares about whether it's "realistic" or not, the "cool factor" is what matters now. 

Change can be a good thing sometimes, conservatism is more often the enemy of good change than it is a stalwart against bad changes.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 15, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Oh, don't ask questions like that.  It's just going to make it worse.  Granted, if the shields are made of glass, they do weigh a good deal less - but then you have a shield made of glass. Also, it seems to be made of the same stuff as the boots and likely the armor.  But, what is that hauberk or gambeson or breastplate (or whatever it is) made out of?   Iron, as it appears if you look at the top of it, or some sort of cloth, like it appears if you look at the bottom?   And why does it need to be belted?  The belt doesn't support anything.  It doesn't close anything.  And why did this giant that just decked himself out in 20000 lbs of whatever, feel that his braid had to flip out in front of his head so badly, he was willing to cut a gaping hole in his neck protection to let it dangle down.  And for that matter, exactly what is the braid attached to?




Also, the giant is splay-footed. If that's her normal posture she probably can't even keep her balance. Those aren't _shields_, those are _crutches!_


----------



## unknowable (Oct 15, 2016)

Barachiel said:


> What weight? Magically enchanted. Done. Moving on.
> 
> The only thing I agree with is the braid.
> 
> ...




Eh this hasn't ever been a new thing.
I mean crap, bucklers that STRAP onto arms are just stupid, 5e actually has good weights for most of it's equipment vs 3.5 for instance, but also has god awful weight on that chainmail.

The way armor works, the way you recover after a rest and so on.

And people saying that magic isn't a good enough explanation, why the hell not? We have all sorts of extremely odd and powerful magical items available to us and fire giants are steeped in lore based around magical weapon and armour construction.

I am fine with people running a realistic game, and you can do things to make it more realistic with 5e... But this is the least of a person's problems if they want to do this.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 15, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> To clarify, he said Obsidian and though it looks somewhat like glass it is most definitely not glass




Obsidian - as a relatively pure SiO2, is basically glass and is certainly a type of glass.  The physical properties of obsidian - density, tensile strength, hardness, etc. - aren't that different than what a glass bottle is made out of.


----------



## John R Davis (Oct 15, 2016)

Please don't start making the art pathfinder stupid style


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 15, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Obsidian - as a relatively pure SiO2, is basically glass and is certainly a type of glass.  The physical properties of obsidian - density, tensile strength, hardness, etc. - aren't that different than what a glass bottle is made out of.




Thank you for the clarification I didn't realize obsidian was mostly silica.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 15, 2016)

Demetrios1453 said:


> The problem with this argument is that it presupposes that fire giants themselves are inherently physically and biologically plausible, which they aren't. A fire giant, or any giant for that matter, even without armor, should have their own legs shatter under the stress of their own weight (they obviously have human-type leg bones and not the elephant-like leg bones they would need to carry their own weight).




If you are going to try to engage me in an argument on 'realism', at least get your facts straight.   Fire giants are only 12' tall.  There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't scale up the frame of a silverback gorilla to produce an upright posture in a 12' tall creature.  That's not even improbable much less impossible.  Giant sloths and other prehistoric creatures show evidence of being able to assume an upright posture in 5 ton, 12' tall creature, able to reach upward 17'.  I mean that's pretty much exactly fire giant size, except that fire giants are less heavy.  And fire giants in particular have a stocky shape that gives their legs plenty of room for oversized bones to hold them up.  



> And, given that fire giants are fire-based creatures, this problem would be massively exacerbated, meaning that any reality-based fire giant would rapidly overheat and die. For a fire giant to even exist we would have to presuppose a non-standard biology, and, once that becomes a given, any questions on physical limitations goes out the window. So, until we have a detailed examination of fire giant biology that would contradict it, we have to assume that fire giants are able to carry the weight of that armor and those shields...




Now you are just get nonsensical.  We don't have to assume anything.  We don't have to have questions about the physical limitations. Fire giants have a strength score for crying out loud.  That's why I said that even if you don't approach this from a realism standpoint, even if you just approach this from a game rules standpoint, the math doesn't add up.  What I can guarantee you didn't happen, is that the designers didn't work backward from this picture to figure out how high that strength score needed to be to carry all the crap that the creature in the painting was being loaded down with.  And for another thing, let's even assume that in fact this giant as a 42 Strength or whatever it would take to have that sort of carrying capacity in a large sized creature.  Why in the heck if you are that strong would you bother with this sort of configuration?  Again, if two tower shields as a battering ram makes an effective battlefield weapon, why hasn't anyone ever adopted it?   Certainly there have been humans strong enough to carry two 30 or 40 pound shields.  Why didn't some ancient civilization make this a thing?   And the answer is, because it doesn't work very well even on its own terms.   It doesn't make you particularly more of a battering ram than having one shield.  It doesn't make you any more capable of bashing down and through foes, and in fact it makes you less capable.  The guy with one shield, takes your charge on his shield, and stabs you with his spear in your immobile, unvisored, exposed face.

Nor do I think this is even a particularly effective anti-human strategy.  Because humans would certainly know they can't go shield wall to shield wall and win a shoving match with something that has 40 times their strength and 10 times their mass.  Humans are going to skirmish whenever possible, which means you need mobility and the ability to engage at range.  And this giant has given up mobility, given up reach, and given up one of giantkin's most effective weapons - their uncanny ability to throw rocks accurately at long range.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 15, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Also, the giant is splay-footed. If that's her normal posture she probably can't even keep her balance. Those aren't _shields_, those are _crutches!_




That was my immediate impression.  Normally, when I hold a shield, I'm balancing the weight of it with my body behind it - one foot forward, the other back, in a fencing type posture.  And normally shields are made of something that is relatively light weight.  You don't make solid disks of steel and use them as a shield.  Typically you are going to make a tower shield out of thin wood, covered with leather or strong cloth, and then edged in thin steel or bronze with a thin steel boss in the middle.   This shield on the other hand is made like a modern snow plow.  As I said, each looks to weigh about 8000 lbs.  Even if you had magic to half the weight of the shields, it would still be too much.  Imagine the posture these shields imply, with both shields out in front of you locked together, and you realize that it's just too awkward to carry any large fraction of your weight in front of you like that no matter how strong you are.  You can't balance the weight by rotating your body.  You'd have to have a splayed posture and take mincing little baby steps to move.  You'd be continually on the verge of toppling forward, and the heavier the shield is relative to your own body weight the worse it would be.   Even with magic reducing the weight by half, each of the shields weigh more than the giant does.  Imagine carrying two 250 lb shields in front of you.  Even if you are some super strong person that can carry 500 lbs, you can't move quickly in that posture.

Again, the take away I got immediately from this picture was pity.  Crutches indeed.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 15, 2016)

And another thing that bothers me about this picture, is it is pretty obviously directly inspired by the orc armor in Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings' movies.  It's the same wavy spiky unfinished iron overall appearance.  Now, in the movies, the whole thing behind the wavy unfinished appearance is that the orcs are lazy, and they don't care.  They make crude but effective weapons because they aren't particularly good smiths, and even if they are, they don't care, and give a crap about anything but killing.   Fine.

Now, I don't know what anyone else thinks, but that's never been the take I've had on fire giant smithcraft.  I've always pictured fire giants as master smiths, they love their work, and produce fabulously superhumanly well crafted metal work.  Why in the world would they go with this unpolished, unfinished, hasty looking, rough work?   Why would fire giants use roughly casted slabs of pig iron to make their armor?  Why would we go for fire giants as just bestial uncaring brutes wearing stuff that looks like it was made by orcs?   Couldn't we be going for intelligent, skillful, and also cruel?


----------



## MonkeyWrench (Oct 15, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Why is "magic" not a sufficient answer? It explains why dragons fly (even more ridiculous than this image), Thor can wield Mjolnir, and giants can stand, among a great many other things in D&D.




Because I find some fidelity to real-world physics enhances the fantastical nature of the game. The "it's magic" explanation doesn't always cut it for me, especially when it comes to things on the edge of plausibility (a humanoid in plate armor, for instance). I'm afraid I don't have a satisfactory answer as for why some things break my suspension of disbelief and others don't, but the more unique it is -Mjolnir - then the more likely I am to give it a pass whereas the more rank and file-fantasy - fire giant dreadnought #12 - needs to hew closer to my understanding of physics. 

To be honest though, I've always found Giants in DnD conceptually awesome and mechanically boring because I don't think their size has been sufficiently factored into their mechanics.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 15, 2016)

MonkeyWrench said:


> Because I find some fidelity to real-world physics enhances the fantastical nature of the game. The "it's magic" explanation doesn't always cut it for me, especially when it comes to things on the edge of plausibility (a humanoid in plate armor, for instance). I'm afraid I don't have a satisfactory answer as for why some things break my suspension of disbelief and others don't, but the more unique it is -Mjolnir - then the more likely I am to give it a pass whereas the more rank and file-fantasy - fire giant dreadnought #12 - needs to hew closer to my understanding of physics.
> 
> To be honest though, I've always found Giants in DnD conceptually awesome and mechanically boring because I don't think their size has been sufficiently factored into their mechanics.




Yes, everyone does have a different threshold.  Maybe since I am an architect and I deal with the strength of materials regularly I see giants as incredible implausible.  So I naturally assume there is magic involved. OF course D&D has never done size and strength very well.  I think large, huge, & gargantuan creatures have really low strength scores so that their to hit bonus doesn't break bounded accuracy (and tradition).  They should really just separate strength (damage) and accuracy/ to hit (dexterity?).  Then you could have low to hit score and massive strength damage.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 15, 2016)

MonkeyWrench said:


> Because I find some fidelity to real-world physics enhances the fantastical nature of the game. The "it's magic" explanation doesn't always cut it for me...




The problem with not making some attempt at fidelity to reality is that it almost always results in creating things with less thought and less craftsmanship and less planning.  The results aren't things that are cooler, as a result of your greater freedom from constraint, but pretty much invariably things that are dumber as a result of your greater freedom from thought.  You invariably end up with variations on the adult dragon in the 30'x30' room with no exits big enough for the dragon to use.  "It's magic" isn't a satisfactory answer to that, and moreover is probably a dishonest answer to that.  The real honest answer is almost certainly, "I put no thought into it."

Trying to make things as plausible as you can before invoking, "It's magic.", results in a world that is more interesting and not less interesting.  It results in a world were things have more meaning, and where things yield more meaning the more you investigate them.  You can get away with less realism in literary mediums that are less interactive and involve less time spent by the audience in the setting.  But the more interactive you are and the more time you expect the audience to spend in the setting, the more real your world-building needs to be.

Like, in the case of fire giants, I'm perfectly ok invoking that the giant is made of something fire proof and even that it has supernatural strength.  But if it's supernatural strength is so much that I'm perfectly ok with it carrying around 10 tons of steel, while moving at its running speed, then my question is, "How mere mortals fight something that is basically a semi-tractor trailer truck?"   It's one thing to say that a giant is a bit stronger than a bear, or a gorilla, or a rhinoceros or is equivalent in size and power to something our cave men ancestors had to face armed with nothing more than a flint spear.  I can imagine a superheroic mortal facing that down with a magical brand and a shield.   But eventually, if you make a giant too fantastically strong, I stop believing its a suitable foe even for an action hero.

Another way to look at this is that people who don't care about realism never notice if something is realistic.  No one has ever said, "I found the costuming in Lord of the Rings too practical, and too well thought out.  The weapons just looked too functional and effective for my taste.  Why did everything have to look so real?"  But people who do care, do notice these things and quickly.



> To be honest though, I've always found Giants in DnD conceptually awesome and mechanically boring because I don't think their size has been sufficiently factored into their mechanics.




D&D, and indeed most RPGs, have done a poor job dealing with scale.  3e was the first version of D&D that really tried to make the scale of a creature matter, but I agree it could be cool to take that even further.


----------



## MonkeyWrench (Oct 15, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Yes, everyone does have a different threshold.  Maybe since I am an architect and I deal with the strength of materials regularly I see giants as incredible implausible.  So I naturally assume there is magic involved. OF course D&D has never done size and strength very well.  I think large, huge, & gargantuan creatures have really low strength scores so that their to hit bonus doesn't break bounded accuracy (and tradition).  They should really just separate strength (damage) and accuracy/ to hit (dexterity?).  Then you could have low to hit score and massive strength damage.




I can see adding a size-based damage boost for Large+ creatures so that BA isn't broken. 

One of this issues I have with giants and other Huge+ creatures is that I find it hard to see how mundane attacks from medium or smaller opponents can even hurt them. Superficial wounds, sure, but attacks deadly enough to kill them seem implausible, especially if the giant is wearing any kind of armor.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 15, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> That was my immediate impression.  Normally, when I hold a shield, I'm balancing the weight of it with my body behind it - one foot forward, the other back, in a fencing type posture.  And normally shields are made of something that is relatively light weight.  You don't make solid disks of steel and use them as a shield.  Typically you are going to make a tower shield out of thin wood, covered with leather or strong cloth, and then edged in thin steel or bronze with a thin steel boss in the middle.   This shield on the other hand is made like a modern snow plow.  As I said, each looks to weigh about 8000 lbs.  Even if you had magic to half the weight of the shields, it would still be too much.  *Imagine the posture these shields imply, with both shields out in front of you locked together*, and you realize that it's just too awkward to carry any large fraction of your weight in front of you like that no matter how strong you are.  You can't balance the weight by rotating your body.  You'd have to have a splayed posture and take mincing little baby steps to move.  You'd be continually on the verge of toppling forward, and the heavier the shield is relative to your own body weight the worse it would be.   Even with magic reducing the weight by half, each of the shields weigh more than the giant does.  Imagine carrying two 250 lb shields in front of you.  Even if you are some super strong person that can carry 500 lbs, you can't move quickly in that posture.
> 
> Again, the take away I got immediately from this picture was pity.  Crutches indeed.




Additionally, if you're planning to fight with shields locked together as some kind of ridiculous snow-plow, you should just have one snow-plow instead of two shields that you have to keep locked together by muscle power. And you'd probably want wheels too.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 15, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Now, I don't know what anyone else thinks, but that's never been the take I've had on fire giant smithcraft.  I've always pictured fire giants as master smiths, they love their work, and produce fabulously superhumanly well crafted metal work.  Why in the world would they go with this unpolished, unfinished, hasty looking, rough work?   Why would fire giants use roughly casted slabs of pig iron to make their armor?  Why would we go for fire giants as just bestial uncaring brutes wearing stuff that looks like it was made by orcs?   Couldn't we be going for intelligent, skillful, and also cruel?




One thing I like to do with giants is to give them a sort of spontaneous magic: every giant, sometime during his lifetime, has the potential to be struck by inspiration for an idiosyncratic magic item. As you interact with giants, you may meet a Hill Giant who has a cauldron which is never empty of gruel (unless you empty it all at once, which ends the magic permanently) or a Fire Giant who has a magic harp that sings by itself or a Frost Giant with shoes that leave no tracks behind. Each item will be something that makes its specific creator happy or fulfilled in some way.

This makes even the most brutish Hill Giant a sort of idiot savant master smith/magician at least once in its life, which adds to the giant mystique.


----------



## Beleriphon (Oct 15, 2016)

gyor said:


> Those shields aren't immovable, slap them side by side and plow forward with the full strength of a Fire Giant, watch as it scoops up enemies and crushes them into stuff. Think snow plow.




That is exactly what I'm imagining from that picture. Hell, I can imagine a fire giant fighting like that in a movie, and it looks pretty awesome.

Also, maybe it will have an ability that after making its charge attack it drops one shield and a AOE and in doing so loses part of its AC and then fights more or less normally.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 15, 2016)

MonkeyWrench said:


> One of this issues I have with giants and other Huge+ creatures is that I find it hard to see how mundane attacks from medium or smaller opponents can even hurt them. Superficial wounds, sure, but attacks deadly enough to kill them seem implausible, especially if the giant is wearing any kind of armor.




Well if a giant is roughly 3x the size of a human that would make their chest approximately 3' deep.  Still plenty shallow enough to hack and slash with most D&D weapons


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Oct 15, 2016)

gyor said:


> Those shields aren't immovable, slap them side by side and plow forward with the full strength of a Fire Giant, watch as it scoops up enemies and crushes them into stuff. Think snow plow.





Beleriphon said:


> That is exactly what I'm imagining from that picture. Hell, I can imagine a fire giant fighting like that in a movie, and it looks pretty awesome.
> 
> Also, maybe it will have an ability that after making its charge attack it drops one shield and a AOE and in doing so loses part of its AC and then fights more or less normally.



What creatures are you imagining this giant charging through?


----------



## Uchawi (Oct 15, 2016)

It looks like a dwarf in stature, but overall the shields are fairly large for my tastes and any attempt to be realistic. Just explaining things away with magic only makes sense if the race as a whole is considered magic users. I never assumed that with giants. It would be cool if they took the same concept and replaced it with sword-shields that could be dual wielded on each arm.


----------



## Beleriphon (Oct 15, 2016)

HomegrownHydra said:


> What creatures are you imagining this giant charging through?




Group of PCs, really anything smaller than itself. Its like a bulldozer vs a crowd.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Oct 15, 2016)

Can't PCs easily move out of the way?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 15, 2016)

I'm glad you guys aren't designing monsters for these books. I feel like the criticisms are more about displaying a level of real world physics rather than on what kind of design elements make for compelling concepts in a fantasy setting.

I mean, typically when folks display a knowledge of science, I find it impressive...but there's a time and place. When discussing the lifting capacity of a fire giant that already defies conventional physics, within a fantasy setting...it just comes across as pedantic.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 15, 2016)

HomegrownHydra said:


> Can't PCs easily move out of the way?




Not if the dreadnought fills the width of the passageway. A passageway with a pit of lava on the far end, preferably...


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Oct 15, 2016)

HomegrownHydra said:


> Can't PCs easily move out of the way?




No because Giants are not slow. While dodging can be done, If another guy charges you there is a good chance you won't be able to dodge out of way. This is the same thing but the other guy is 18 ft tall. 


Also reading this thread and the last one about the volo previews. I have realized something, far far too many people here hate fun. Seriously there are so many stick in the muds here, who don't have an ounce of imagination.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 15, 2016)

MonsterEnvy said:


> No because Giants are not slow. While dodging can be done, If another guy charges you there is a good chance you won't be able to dodge out of way. This is the same thing but the other guy is 18 ft tall.
> 
> 
> Also reading this thread and the last one about the volo previews. I have realized something, far far too many people here hate fun. Seriously there are so many stick in the muds here, who don't have an ounce of imagination.




Exactly. My first response to seeing this was to come up with a half-dozen ways I could use it to set up interesting challenges for my players, not to worry about whether it could actually exist. Playing the game itself requires a willing suspension of disbelief on so many levels that complaining that dreadnought wouldn't be physically possible (when fire giants themselves aren't even physically possible) does seem to be missing the forest for the trees...


----------



## Mercule (Oct 15, 2016)

Barachiel said:


> Watched any anime?



I do not watch anime. I do not like the art style. I do not like silliness that passes for "cool". I do not enjoy anime and it is, as a general rule, exactly what I want to avoid out of art, RPGs, board games, card games, video games, etc.

People keep telling me I just haven't watched the right stuff. I stopped humoring them after about the eighth "Now, this is good anime." I've simply decided that anime is to the visual/action palette what lutefisk is to the culinary palette. Some people like it, but I have no idea why.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 15, 2016)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Also reading this thread and the last one about the volo previews. I have realized something, far far too many people here hate fun. Seriously there are so many stick in the muds here, who don't have an ounce of imagination.




That's a pretty mean thing to say.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Oct 15, 2016)

Mercule said:


> I do not watch anime. I do not like the art style. I do not like silliness that passes for "cool". I do not enjoy anime and it is, as a general rule, exactly what I want to avoid out of art, RPGs, board games, card games, video games, etc.
> 
> People keep telling me I just haven't watched the right stuff. I stopped humoring them after about the eighth "Now, this is good anime." I've simply decided that anime is to the visual/action palette what lutefisk is to the culinary palette. Some people like it, but I have no idea why.



This dreadnought is not anime.



Hemlock said:


> That's a pretty mean thing to say.




True it's a bit mean to say they don't have any imagination. But they still rather stuck up.

The guy who said that the Gelatinous Cube goes into the silly box to never be used lost all respect from me.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (Oct 15, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Couldn't we be going for intelligent, skillful, and also cruel?




That is very well said. My 5E game is heading in to a conversion of Against the Giants, so I'm going to keep that phrase in mind.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 15, 2016)

Well Ok, that certainly was not the Dreadnaught that I was expecting.

I was hoping for some kind of massive Fire Giant machine.


----------



## flametitan (Oct 16, 2016)

With Storm King's thunder's Rune magic as a specifically a "giant" thing, I wouldn't be surprised if the shields had some runes under them to reduce weight. Giants in the Forgotten Realms do apparently seem to use magic in their craft.

As for the armour, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a lighter material and it's just there for the intimidation factor, rather than actual armour. The AC therefore comes from being a giant, rather than the armour.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 16, 2016)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Seriously there are so many stick in the muds here, who don't have an ounce of imagination.





Hey, don't be insulting.  

If, in order to make your point look valid, you have to lay some personal fault on the other guy, your point isn't very good at all.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 16, 2016)

MonsterEnvy said:


> This dreadnought is not anime.



Agreed. But, it was held out as part of the trend.


----------



## Gorath99 (Oct 17, 2016)

Hmm. Have to say I'm in the camp that likes their D&D a bit more grounded. (I'd be perfectly happy with this Dreadnought in World of Warcraft, or most anything anime-based, though.)

On the plus side, I do appreciate that there is some acknowledgement that giants in a D&D world would not use the same weapons as humans. Swords and regular sized shields aren't ideal if many of your opponents are significantly smaller than you. It certainly wouldn't be my equipment of choice if I risked being attacked by a band of armored baboons. Though I'd go for a Lucerne hammer over 2 huge spikey shields.


----------



## Henry (Oct 18, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> Well Ok, that certainly was not the Dreadnaught that I was expecting.
> 
> I was hoping for some kind of massive Fire Giant machine.




That's darn near what this is.  Honestly, the plausibility angle wasn't what came to my mind. Instead, it was, _"how the heck would I ever HURT such a thing? It's like attacking a 20 ft tall anvil with legs!"_


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 18, 2016)

Henry said:


> That's darn near what this is.  Honestly, the plausibility angle wasn't what came to my mind. Instead, it was, _"how the heck would I ever HURT such a thing? It's like attacking a 20 ft tall anvil with legs!"_




I dun known man.  I would love for my Juggernaut to be able to have a crack at one of those Dreadnaughts.

I may even let him have three shields just to make it fair.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 21, 2016)

Wow... My brain is full. Obviously the art is evocative - got a lot of response 8/

Anyway, could the armor be chitin?

Who cares anyway, really. This is basically a moving shield wall. Pretty sure its not going to stand there like that in a fight for the dwarf to poke in the gonads.

This guy is a corridor cleaner with the stabby guys to follow or chucker guys to launch over.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 21, 2016)

If I saw this picture without a name for the beastie I'd think "that's a cool variant iron golem".

It just doesn't feel like a living, breathing creature to me. I think it's the way the face seems to be part of the helmet.

Well at least the dreadnaught doesn't have dinky little legs with fragile-looking ankles like the fire giant illustration in the 5E _Monster Manual_.






Concept wise I guess it'd depend on what sort of game I was running at the time. For a more outré adventure it'd be fine but I tend to prefer more grounded scenarios.

Most likely I'd mod it so the dreadnaught has a single oversized shield plus some auxiliary weapon so it's a bit more versatile (long-handled axe? spear? quiver of darts? box of rocks?).

Then again, maybe it _does_ carry auxiliary weapons - that waist belt presumably supports something.



Celebrim said:


> Probably less than what it has, but I guarantee that question was never asked.  From the drawing, each shield weighs about 8000lb.  Heavy load for a fire giant is something like 5000lb.  It's carrying two shields AND wearing thick bulky armor.  Forget realism.  Under the game rules, that giant ought not be able to even budge itself from its place, and would require aid just to free itself from the prison of armor its been placed in.




Hmm, fire giants are 18-footers in 5E I believe, so let's see...

Two shields each about 18' by 6', approximate them as being, say, 1-inch thick steel. That's a total of 9 cubic feet of steel and steel has a density of 7.8-8.0 or so which comes to around 4,500 pounds per shield.

I guess they could weight 8,000 apiece if they were thicker metal, but I'd assume they'd be made of something considerably lighter faced with metal since, well, that's how shields are made. Presumable something fireproof (red dragon bone? wood from fire elemental trees?).

A real-world tower shield is what, 30 to 50 pounds? Scale that up by the cube of 3 and you get somewhere around 1,000 pounds a shield. That seems more practical weightwise but doesn't match the visual very well.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 21, 2016)

Cleon said:


> Hmm, fire giants are 18-footers in 5E I believe, so let's see...




Why does everything have to get bigger in every edition that goes by?  Do peoples imaginations get more and more crippled, or do developers fall into the temptation of trying to outdo the prior edition?



> Two shields each about 18' by 6', approximate them *as being, say, 1-inch thick steel.*




Except the picture gives us no reason to think of the shields as hollow, and if you'll look at that 'plow' portion of the lower shield and indeed all of the shield except perhaps the top edge, it seems implied that the shield is much thicker than just 1".  Given the width of the edges displayed in the picture, the shield could even conservatively be 4" thick.   So that goes up to 18,000 pounds per shield.  If the plow is as solid as it appears to be, that could be light.  My estimate of 8000lbs now seems low.



> I guess they could weight 8,000 apiece if they were thicker metal, but I'd assume they'd be made of something considerably lighter faced with metal since, well, that's how shields are made. Presumable something fireproof (red dragon bone? wood from fire elemental trees?).




My assumption was that they were intended to represent solid metal on the basis of that's how they were drawn and that they seemed to be glowing red hot.  But yes, normally shields are made of a lighter material and then faced with metal.  Without seeing a write up for the shields, it's hard to be absolutely certain what the designer was thinking or what they communicated to the artist, but if I had to guess absolutely no thought was put into it at all.  The painting reeks of artwork that had to be finished under tight deadlines by an overworked artist.

A single 1,000lb shield is something I would put in the realm of believability for a giant of that size, granting first that giants of that scale are believable (and at 18', only just, and we are starting to need to make them out of something other than real world materials, which is fine being Fire Giants and all).  It's not at all clear to me why you'd ever need twos shields.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 21, 2016)

In a world where creatures of radically different size may face each other in combat, I think you have to alter your view a bit on what tactics or methods would be normal or reasonable.

This giant's two shields are very clearly drawn to look as though they can be pressed together in front of the giant, allowing him to charge forward and plow his enemies.

they also look large enough and heavy enough that one could be set in front of a door or gate or cave mouth, potentially blocking folks within from being able escape. So the giant could drop a shield off and then continue on, still with the other shield and with any weapons that he may have on his belt.

Taking medieval tech and adding concepts like flying enemies and giant or tiny enemies and you have changed the nature of combat. I prefer that they experiment and play with that when designing these monsters, rather than adhering to a sense of realism that doesn't even really apply.

I suppose to put it simply, in a fantasy setting I prefer that the combat also be fantastic.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Oct 21, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Why does everything have to get bigger in every edition that goes by?




I thought Firbolgs were getting smaller.


----------



## mflayermonk (Oct 22, 2016)

Back in my day we animated our shields and carried a two-handed weapon.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 22, 2016)

Cleon said:


> Well at least the dreadnaught doesn't have dinky little legs with fragile-looking ankles like the fire giant illustration in the 5E _Monster Manual_.




I did not know they had the Zika virus in DnD.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Oct 22, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> Why does everything have to get bigger in every edition that goes by?



The 5th edition giant heights return them to their AD&D 2nd edition heights, so if they've "gotten bigger" it is to undo their having "gotten smaller" at some prior point.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Oct 22, 2016)

Also the reason for the Fire Giants fairly small legs is because they are built like Dwarves.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 22, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> The 5th edition giant heights return them to their AD&D 2nd edition heights, so if they've "gotten bigger" it is to undo their having "gotten smaller" at some prior point.




Interesting.  So we are fighting back and forth between their 1st edition height, and their 2nd edition height?


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 22, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> A single 1,000lb shield is something I would put in the realm of believability for a giant of that size, granting first that giants of that scale are believable (and at 18', only just, and we are starting to need to make them out of something other than real world materials, which is fine being Fire Giants and all).




AN 18' tall giant would weigh 27X that of a 6' human, yet only be 9x as strong.  That is not believable to me (in real world physics and strength of materials).  This is why elephants do not look or move like deer!


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 22, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> This is why elephants do not look or move like deer!




If elephants looked and moved like deer then they would be giant deer instead of elephants.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Oct 22, 2016)

Why are we talking about how realistic giants are.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 22, 2016)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Why are we talking about how realistic giants are.




That's what I'm wondering. If you can suspend disbelief enough to believe giants can exist, then having one that can lug around a couple of shields isn't an insurmountable step beyond that...


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 22, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> If elephants looked and moved like deer then they would be giant deer instead of elephants.




The point is, in the real world you can't have giant deer (or at least deer the size of elephants) because their gracile legs would break under the stress and strain of their athletic movements.  If a deer to evolve to the size of an elephant it would end up looking a lot like an elephant.  A giraffe is probable about as big as you can get with a deer like shape and they are 1/3 the weight of an elephant.


----------



## Dualazi (Oct 22, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> in the real world




Found your problem. Real world physics need not apply in D&D discussions, unless you're also going to apply it to every other source of contention like how dragons can fly, the ramifications of any number of spells, and the alleged physical properties of fantasy metals and substances. Seriously, realism isn't an argument when you realize it would have to be applied setting-wide and thus the game would crumple because, of course, it's fantasy.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 22, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> AN 18' tall giant would weigh 27X that of a 6' human, yet only be 9x as strong.  That is not believable to me (in real world physics and strength of materials).




It's not freakin' believable to me either... because heck, a gorilla is about 9x as strong as a human.  We can presume anything scaled up involves a scaled up version of the heavier simian frame used by a gorillas or chimpanzees.  This results in an 18' tall creature with say 30-40x the weight of a person, but say 60-80x as strong.   That's a much lower strength to weight ratio that a gorilla or a chimpanzee, but still higher than the vast majority of humans, because well humans are a terrible basis for theoretical strength of animals as we are almost at the bottom end of the scale when it comes to strength to weight ratios.

The problem I frequently have discussing 'realism', is that exactly what is realistic is not easy to determine, but some people are absolutely sure otherwise.  If it is close, I'm quite happy to give the benefit of the doubt.  If it is illustrating some common trope of fantasy, I'm quite happy to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Besides which, since an 18' foot tall giant is on the edge of realism as it is, once we factor in - as I said in the quoted section that they aren't necessarily made of real world materials - I don't have a huge problem with an 18' foot tall giant.  As I said, my huge problem here is not only is the giant carrying an unrealistic amount of weight, it is an unrealistic amount of weight that is unrealistic even under the rules of the game.   This is a situation where it's not a close run thing, isn't illustrating a common trope of fantasy, and appears to have had very little thought given to it.   The picture isn't marginally unrealistic and it's not a normal conceit of fantasy; it's just absurd.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 22, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> The point is, in the real world you can't have giant deer (or at least deer the size of elephants) because their gracile legs would break under the stress and strain of their athletic movements.  If a deer to evolve to the size of an elephant it would end up looking a lot like an elephant.  A giraffe is probable about as big as you can get with a deer like shape and they are 1/3 the weight of an elephant.




Yes, I'm aware of the biomechanical limitations of real world animals.

However, in D&D world there are lots of creatures that look like massively scaled-up versions of normal sized creatures, such as giants vs. humanoids.

Since many of them are three times taller without having legs five times thicker like the square-cube rule dictates, clearly their leg bones, muscles and tendons _must_ be proportionally stronger per unit cross-section to allow them to move about normally.

I think the easiest solution is to assume there's some aspect of "magical" biology that allows a creature's strength or toughness to be proportional to its volume.

It explains Godzilla, and who would want a universe without Godzilla.*

. . .

*Apart from a lot of Japanese, of course.


----------



## Cleon (Oct 22, 2016)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Also the reason for the Fire Giants fairly small legs is because they are built like Dwarves.




Just for clarification, it's not the length of the legs that bothers me but the thickness.

They just look too... _spindly_.

They'd look much better if they were more proportional to the 5E _Monster Manual_ Fire Giant's arms, which are ridiculously thick.

Look at its hands - they're way bigger than his feet!

Compare them to, say, a Gorilla. It just looks wrong to me:


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 22, 2016)

Dualazi said:


> Found your problem. Real world physics need not apply in D&D discussions, unless you're also going to apply it to every other source of contention like how dragons can fly, the ramifications of any number of spells, and the alleged physical properties of fantasy metals and substances. Seriously, realism isn't an argument when you realize it would have to be applied setting-wide and thus the game would crumple because, of course, it's fantasy.




I agree completely - that was my point.  Why be offended by the lack  "real world" design in the fire giant when that doesn't apply to D&D


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 22, 2016)

Cleon said:


> Yes, I'm aware of the biomechanical limitations of real world animals.
> 
> However, in D&D world there are lots of creatures that look like massively scaled-up versions of normal sized creatures, such as giants vs. humanoids.
> 
> ...




To clarify, since everyone seems to have missed it, I am trying to point out that using real world concepts of physics and strength of materials is nonsense when it comes to D&D.  And that is a good thing!  Just accept flying dragons and move on. 

P.S.  I have a 5e stat-block for Godzilla


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 22, 2016)

Celebrim said:


> It's not freakin' believable to me either... because heck, a gorilla is about 9x as strong as a human.  We can presume anything scaled up involves a scaled up version of the heavier simian frame used by a gorillas or chimpanzees.  This results in an 18' tall creature with say 30-40x the weight of a person, but say 60-80x as strong.   That's a much lower strength to weight ratio that a gorilla or a chimpanzee, but still higher than the vast majority of humans, because well humans are a terrible basis for theoretical strength of animals as we are almost at the bottom end of the scale when it comes to strength to weight ratios.




That's a fair point, but you exaggerate the difference.  That is a number zoos and animal trainers often quote.  But actual studies show that chimps are about 2x as strong as humans pound for pound.  Still a somewhat valid point.

I remember seeing a human and gorilla skeleton side by side in college and I was amazed at how much thicker the bones of the Gorilla were.  They are truley much more robust than we are.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 22, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Why be offended by the lack  "real world" design in the fire giant when that doesn't apply to D&D




Well mainly I guess because a shield is "real world" design whereas a Dragon is not.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Oct 22, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> Well mainly I guess because a shield is "real world" design whereas a Dragon is not.



But just like "giant lizard with wings that can actually fly" isn't a real world design despite that something with some similarities is (a much smaller, wingless lizard to be precise), these 15' tall shields covered in spikes and with a plow-like edge aren't real world designs despite that something with some similarities is (a much smaller, maybe spiked but definitely not plow-edged shield).

To give one a pass for being obviously unrealistic, but not give the other a pass for the same reason, that's is inconsistent.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 22, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> But just like "giant lizard with wings that can actually fly" isn't a real world design despite that something with some similarities is (a much smaller, wingless lizard to be precise), these 15' tall shields covered in spikes and with a plow-like edge aren't real world designs despite that something with some similarities is (a much smaller, maybe spiked but definitely not plow-edged shield).
> 
> To give one a pass for being obviously unrealistic, but not give the other a pass for the same reason, that's is inconsistent.




A shield actually does exist and a dragon actually does not.  That is why would you would give one a pass and not the other so hardly inconsistent.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 23, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> Well mainly I guess because a shield is "real world" design whereas a Dragon is not.



Giants are not real world either.  The just look more real world.   Just like a Roc is not real world - it just looks like it.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Oct 23, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> A shield actually does exist and a dragon actually does not.



My point is that the shields depicted in that image do not exist any more than a dragon does; the nearest real thing to each is equally distant - much smaller in size, and with notably different anatomy/construction.

Because yes, a shield is a real thing. So is a lizard.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 23, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> My point is that the shields depicted in that image do not exist any more than a dragon does; the nearest real thing to each is equally distant - much smaller in size, and with notably different anatomy/construction.
> 
> Because yes, a shield is a real thing. So is a lizard.




A lizard is a real thing and on the other hand a lizard is not a Dragon whereas a shield could very well be imagined to be a "magic" shield.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Oct 23, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> A lizard is a real thing and on the other hand a lizard is not a Dragon whereas a shield could very well be imagined to be a "magic" shield.



I may have misread this... are you suggesting a lizard couldn't very well be imagined to be a "magic" lizard?


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 23, 2016)

The shields don't rustle my jimmies, but I can't fault people for disliking them. Everyone's sense of immersion breaks under different kinds of stress. Mine broke during 3E, for example. When the play-test material came out, I absolutely hated the armor art. Not only was it completely ahistorical, but it looked like the worst sort of sophomoric wannabe-comic-book art ever sketched by a pimply high-schooler. Surprisingly, no one in my circle of friends seemed to mind. It's been 16 years now and I still can't look at the 3E core books without retching.

The 5E art, on the other hand, is a godsend -- it's good, sometimes great. This dreadnought fits right in with that, as far as I'm concerned.

To each his own, I guess.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 23, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I may have misread this... are you suggesting a lizard couldn't very well be imagined to be a "magic" lizard?




Well if we are just imagining stuff then how about a Shield too heavy for a Giant to lift?


----------



## n0nym (Oct 23, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> Why be offended by the lack  "real world" design in the fire giant when that doesn't apply to D&D



Because : suspension of disbelief.

When you watch Star Wars, you accept the fact that there are noises in space, lightsabers and people jumping 20 feet high or lifting things with their minds. But if Anakin fell into lava unharmed or could regrow his missing limbs with a Regenerate spell, you would think it's "impossible", even though the whole movie is based on unrealistic things.

This giant breaks my suspension of disbelief. Not only do I think its design is goofy (my opinion only), but lifting two giant shields is indeed a feat that seems out of his league, considering their size and the giant's strength. It reminds me of the worst hours of 3rd edition, where every new monster manual was full of ridiculous monsters that I never used.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 23, 2016)

n0nym said:


> Because : suspension of disbelief.
> 
> When you watch Star Wars, you accept the fact that there are noises in space, lightsabers and people jumping 20 feet high or lifting things with their minds. But if Anakin fell into lava unharmed or could regrow his missing limbs with a Regenerate spell, you would think it's "impossible", even though the whole movie is based on unrealistic things.
> 
> This giant breaks my suspension of disbelief. Not only do I think its design is goofy (my opinion only), but lifting two giant shields is indeed a feat that seems out of his league, considering their size and the giant's strength. It reminds me of the worst hours of 3rd edition, where every new monster manual was full of ridiculous monsters that I never used.




Yes, everyone has different limits and triggers.  No doubt about that.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Oct 24, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> Well if we are just imagining stuff...



How is that not what D&D is normally?


Shasarak said:


> ...then how about a Shield too heavy for a Giant to lift?



Oooh, like a tower shield used in some ancient war by a Titan of prodigious strength even for its race? That would be really cool, actually - I could have it sort of stuck in the dirt at an angle, and the party could battle giants upon the sloped surface, scrabbling from stud to stud trying to get to the top edge to stop some nefarious time consuming plot device while giants bounce boulders down at them and lurk above/behind some of the studs to bash the party with clubs.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 17, 2016)

Has anyone noticed that the actual description in Volo's tells us that the shields are hollow and that these fire giants are stronger than the average (in the fluff and STR of 27 vs 25).


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 17, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> My point is that the shields depicted in that image do not exist any more than a dragon does; the nearest real thing to each is equally distant - much smaller in size, and with notably different anatomy/construction.
> 
> Because yes, a shield is a real thing. So is a lizard.




Fantasy anatomy/physiology doesn't have to imply fantasy mechanical engineering, or bad mechanical engineering.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Fantasy anatomy/physiology doesn't have to imply fantasy mechanical engineering, or ...




But it can.  Personally I would like some of my fantasy games to have, well, fantastic engineering.  That can be a good bit of the fun


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Fantasy anatomy/physiology doesn't have to imply fantasy mechanical engineering, or bad mechanical engineering.



You are right - the game could be explicit that fantasy anatomy is allowed, thus resulting in 18' tall humanoids called fire giants, and that fantasy mechanical engineering is disallowed, giving us the result of giants that literally never wear metal armor because proportionate armor for their body would be entirely too heavy for the already-impossible-beings to lift, let alone move about in.

I just don't see why one would say "that's fine" to one intentionally fantasy element and not also say "that's fine" to the other.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 18, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> You are right - the game could be explicit that fantasy anatomy is allowed, thus resulting in 18' tall humanoids called fire giants, and that fantasy mechanical engineering is disallowed, giving us the result of giants that literally never wear metal armor because *proportionate armor for their body would be entirely too heavy for the already-impossible-beings to lift, let alone move about in.*
> 
> I just don't see why one would say "that's fine" to one intentionally fantasy element and not also say "that's fine" to the other.




Let's do the math.

Plate armor for a human is 65 lb.

A Fire Giant is about 18' tall according to the MM. That means it's about 3x as large as a human in all dimensions, and therefore has 9x the surface area.

If you maintain the thickness of the armor but make it 9x as big in surface area, it has 9x the volume and therefore 9x the weight.

Plate armor for a Fire Giant weighs about 585 lb. Call it 800 lb. if you want to strategically thicken certain areas or widen it to account for their stocky build.

A Fire Giant has a Str of 25. Carrying capacity for Str 25 is 25 * 15 * 4 (for being Huge) = 1500 lb.

Ergo, fantasy physiology (Str 25 + 4x carrying capacity for being Huge, per PHB rules) implies that regular mechanical engineering is 100% A-OK. You don't need fantasy mechanical engineering to get fire giant plate armor to work.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Let's do the math.
> 
> Plate armor for a human is 65 lb.
> 
> ...




But...but....but the shields!!!!!!! Aaaaagh! So ridiculous!


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 18, 2016)

hawkeyefan said:


> But...but....but the shields!!!!!!! Aaaaagh! So ridiculous!




Yes, but they're ridiculous on a human scale too. Also, those shields clearly _have_ been thickened proportionately to the Fire Giant's size, for some odd reason. 

We call that "bad engineering."


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Let's do the math.
> 
> Plate armor for a human is 65 lb.
> 
> ...



Your "math" doesn't actually make all that much sense given it includes a fantasy-ism by way of the abstract carrying capacity rules, and doesn't address the reality that is likely the material will actually need to be made proportionally thicker in order to maintain similar structural integrity (i.e. not bend under its own weight if set down while not being worn).

There is a line we must all draw between what we find to be suitable fantasy and what we find to be too fantastic - I just don't think anyone should consider it reasonable to draw that line between an impossible creature and it's impossible armament.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Yes, but they're ridiculous on a human scale too. Also, those shields clearly _have_ been thickened proportionately to the Fire Giant's size, for some odd reason.
> 
> We call that "bad engineering."




Actually they are not thickened, they are hollow.  It is explained in Volo's.  They are quite "fantastic" actually


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Let's do the math.
> 
> Plate armor for a human is 65 lb.
> 
> ...




However, if you made everything proportionally larger (since it doesn't really make sense to make it the same thickness as that would make it weaker) than you are looking at 1755 lbs of armor. That is still only about a third of the giants body weight.  So while cumbersome, not impossible. Also, the dreadnought has greater strength (27).


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 18, 2016)

The suggestion above that mostly-unthickened armor (800 lb. per previous post) will "bend under its own weight when not set down" is too silly to even address. It's normal plate armor thickness, strategically thickened in certain places (at 800 lb., it's about 35% heavier than merely scaled-up plate, which is 585 lb.); it's not origami tinfoil. Think before you speak, people.



dave2008 said:


> However, if you made everything proportionally larger (*since it doesn't really make sense to make it the same thickness as that would make it weaker*) than you are looking at 1755 lbs of armor. That is still only about a third of the giants body weight.  So while cumbersome, not impossible. Also, the dreadnought has greater strength (27).




That's not how armor works. 1/4" armor is 1/4" armor, regardless of whether it's on a pixie or a Fire Giant or an APC.

If you wanted to thicken Fire Giant armor proportionately (3x normal thickness) as you suggest, you'd need to find a way to give them the benefit of that thickening, e.g. damage resistance 5.

*Bottom line:* the claim that you need fantasy mechanical engineering in order to armor Fire Giants in plate armor is bogus. Fantasy anatomy alone is more than sufficient to allow regular engineering to apply. Fantasy engineering, like requiring proportionately thicker armor "just because", actually makes the armor problem _worse _than using real-world engineering_._

(Also, plate armor for gnomes and halflings should probably be lighter than 65 lb., with proportionately less strength required than Str 15 to wear it.)


----------



## LordEntrails (Nov 18, 2016)

Bottomline; can this thread die now? I really hoped it already had.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> The suggestion above that mostly-unthickened armor (800 lb. per previous post) will "bend under its own weight when not set down" is too silly to even address. It's normal plate armor thickness, strategically thickened in certain places (at 800 lb., it's about 35% heavier than merely scaled-up plate, which is 585 lb.); it's not origami tinfoil. Think before you speak, people.




I didn't suggest that, that was someone else.



Hemlock said:


> That's not how armor works. 1/4" armor is 1/4" armor, regardless of whether it's on a pixie or a Fire Giant or an APC.




That is not how it works (of course plate armor is not close to 1/4" thick, but I get your point).  If you have two 1/4" sheets of steel, one that is 2' x 2' and another that is 6' x 6' they *do not* have the same design load capabilities.  Armor is more complex, but it is conceptually similar to a floor diaphragm which I work with in building design all the time.  The more spread out the diaphragm the thicker it needs to be.  I rule of thumb in construction is 1" per foot of span.  So it you have a floor span of 24', you roughly need 24" of floor structure (usually steel and concrete).  If you decrease that to 8' you would only need 8" with similar materials by the rule (in reality you could span 8' with only 4" of concrete and steel but you get the idea). 



Hemlock said:


> If you wanted to thicken Fire Giant armor proportionately (3x normal thickness) as you suggest, you'd need to find a way to give them the benefit of that thickening, e.g. damage resistance 5.




I agree, but in 5e I don't think that is the way to handle it.  I think large size armor should have higher AC, just like large size weapons do more damage.



Hemlock said:


> *Bottom line:* the claim that you need fantasy mechanical engineering in order to armor Fire Giants in plate armor is bogus. Fantasy anatomy alone is more than sufficient to allow regular engineering to apply. Fantasy engineering, like requiring proportionately thicker armor "just because", actually makes the armor problem _worse _than using real-world engineering_._
> 
> (Also, plate armor for gnomes and halflings should probably be lighter than 65 lb., with proportionately less strength required than Str 15 to wear it.)




That was not a claim I made.  I posted the math for proportionally scaled armor that indicated even if the armor is 3x as thick (which I agree it would not need to be) it would still be feasible for a fire giant to wear it. 

I did claim that I like some bit of fantastic engineering in my fantasy creatures, equipment and castles.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> Fantasy engineering, like requiring proportionately thicker armor "just because", actually makes the armor problem _worse _than using real-world engineering_._




What?  How can fantasy engineering make it worse.  We don't even know what fantasy engineering is!

Of course real-world engineering would dictate thicker armor to achieve relatively the same performance.  I can't say it is proportional because it actually would need to get thicker than 3x at some point.  Depending on strength of materials and where on the curve the human sized vs. giant sized armor is.  As you get taller and wider your need to eventually get thicker (thicker than the same increase in width and height) to maintain dynamic similarity.  However, I have no idea where that is with a suit of armor.  It happens fairly quickly with flesh and bone, deformed steel, however, is a much different situation.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 18, 2016)

LordEntrails said:


> Bottomline; can this thread die now? I really hoped it already had.




Why?  Who doesn't love a lively discussion on the strength of materials and engineering principles in fantasy armor 

However, Volo's is out now, so we have the actually discription in the book to bounce the discussion off of.  That is what prompted me to post.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 18, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> *That was not a claim I made.*  I posted the math for proportionally scaled armor that indicated even if the armor is 3x as thick (which I agree it would not need to be) it would still be feasible for a fire giant to wear it.




I realize that wasn't a claim that you made. I gave you XP earlier, remember? I may have been unclear by addressing multiple people in one post--I thought that nearly-quoting AaronOfBarbarian would be enough to show who I was talking to there, but apparently you thought it was you.

I'm not going to argue over whether plate armor for a giant is more like increased spans for flooring or just a larger floor. At least we've settled the point that you don't need to handwave any engineering if you've already handwaved the physiology.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> I realize that wasn't a claim that you made. I gave you XP earlier, remember? I may have been unclear by addressing multiple people in one post--I thought that nearly-quoting AaronOfBarbarian would be enough to show who I was talking to there, but apparently you thought it was you.
> 
> I'm not going to argue over whether plate armor for a giant is more like increased spans for flooring or just a larger floor. At least we've settled the point that you don't need to handwave any engineering if you've already handwaved the physiology.




no worries, I knew you were quoting [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION]n, but I didn't realize you knew you were quoting him. I was just trying to make that clear.  Difficulties of communicating through forum posts.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Nov 18, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> ...too silly to even address. ...Think before you speak, people.



I wonder, should I just start tossing that kind of attitude at every opinion someone shares that disagrees with me, or would the implication that someone disagreeing with me is being "silly" or doesn"t "think" be viewed as against the forum rules for addressing _the poster_ rather than _just the post_.

And on top of your poor attitude, you've misquoted me - I said the larger, heavier, but same thickness armor would bend under its own weight if set down, and you've put the opposite state (specifically "not set down") in quotes implying I said it to then call "silly".


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 18, 2016)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> And on top of your poor attitude, you've misquoted me - I said the larger, heavier, but same thickness armor would bend under its own weight if set down, and you've put the opposite state (specifically "*not *set down") in quotes implying I said it to then call "silly".




You're right, I typo'ed.

I still have nothing to say about your supposition that plate armor will crumple under its own weight when scaled up by a linear factor of three and strategically thickened to the tune of a 35% weight increase. I shouldn't _have_ to say anything about that--the supposition speaks for itself.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 18, 2016)

Ha, a hollow shield - that is funny!


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Nov 19, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> Ha, a hollow shield - that is funny!



It also works as a flotation device.


----------

