The half-giant and the half-ogre XPH & SS

[ConcreteBuddha]

Does it make any sense that a half-ogre is bigger (and better) than a half-giant, even though a giant is bigger (and better) than an ogre?

Half-Ogre
LA +1 (more like a +2, or +1 with 2 HD of Giant)
Str +6, Con +2
Large

Half-Giant
LA +1
Str +2
Medium

The flavor text for half-giant says that they are sometimes confused with young hill giants. That is silly. The commoner hill giant in the MM has +14 Str, 12 HD, and is LA +4.

Even a half-hill giant would probably have +8 Str, 6 HD and LA +2.

I think they should have bitten the bullet and not made a half-giant +1 LA, or renamed this race something else. It's more like a "giant-touched" than "half-giant".

Just my opinion.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

To aid this debate, I will put in the downsides to both half giants and half ogres.

Half giants get -2 to dex

Half ogres get -2 to dex, int, and cha.

Half ogres have the pretty sexy powrful build ability, where they get to be counted as large for most purposes, and medium for others.

Therefore:

Half Giants: 5' reach

Half ogres: 10' reach, but -1 to AC, -1 to hit, -4 to hide bonuses
Now ask yourself, is an extra 5' of reach worth -1 AC, -1 to hit, and -4 penalty to hide? That's for you to answer, I have my own opinions, but I'm keeping them out of this debate for now.

Half giants get Stomp, which scales by Charisma bonus for DC, and does 1d4 more damage per 2 levels. Not that great, but if you work that charisma, maybe take Skill Focus (Whcih you can take with various SLA or PsLA abilities), you got a neat trick once a day.). Furthermore, you get +2 to saving throws versus fire, and 2 psionic PP at 1st level, which allows them to take psionic feats without actually having a psionic class.

Half ogres have better natural armor (+4 as opposed to +0) and better vision (Darkvision as opposed to low light vision.)

Both are of the giant type, which is either a boon or a curse, depending on how your DM runs things. (For example, if you get a magic item that can only be used by giants, it's good. If you face lots of giant hating dwarf rangers, it's bad, really bad.)

Those are the facts. I will allow you all to from your own opinions based from this info, I allow both at LA +1, and don't feel bad for it, they are very different beasts altogether. But I'm not going to argue with people who disagree.

 

[Staffan]

Does it make any sense that a half-ogre is bigger (and better) than a half-giant, even though a giant is bigger (and better) than an ogre?

Note that half-giants are not the result of a direct mating between human and giant (which would run into... mechanical problems). Instead, they're more like humans infused with some giant essence that makes them really big and strong.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Note that half-giants are not the result of a direct mating between human and giant (which would run into... mechanical problems). Instead, they're more like humans infused with some giant essence that makes them really big and strong.

Why then, do they call it a "half-giant"?

I would expect that something called a "half-X" would have the stats of a "half-X" and not an "X-touched".


They already have a precedent for how monsters (and especially big monsters) are supposed to work. IMO, the half-giant is poorly designed if one takes into account other ECL races.
.
.
.
Besides, I own all of the Dark Sun material, so I know where they are getting their inspiration from. I would have prefered a direct port instead of the half-giant lite.

 

[The Souljourner]

Half Ogres are cheesy, half giants are balanced. What's there left to talk about? The makers of Savage Species were on crack, the makers of the XPH not so much.

So there you have it. I think half giants are pretty well balanced. Getting to use larger weapons is a big plus (large bastard sword is 2d8 one handed!) and extra PSPs and +2 to the two most useful stats for a fighter... they're damn good... they're just not ridiculous, the way the half ogre is. As for naming... what do you want? They're half breeds that happen to not be *perfectly* half of their better parent. Genetics works that way sometimes.

-The Souljourner

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Nonetheless, half-giants should have at least +4 Str IMO. Balance it out with a higher LA or with a nice adjustment to Int, and you're set.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Half Ogres are cheesy, half giants are balanced.

What exactly does cheesiness have to do with balance?

Besides, I never said that half-giants were unbalanced. This post has nothing to do with game balance. It has to do with the fact that a half-giant should only be called a half-giant if it is a half-giant.


Calling an 8 foot tall block of pudding an elf does not make it an elf.

As for naming... what do you want? They're half breeds that happen to not be *perfectly* half of their better parent. Genetics works that way sometimes.

There is genetics in DnD? Right...

"Perfectly"?

I don't care if they are perfect, I care that the average half-giant has less strength than an orc. That is silly.

I would much prefer that your average half-giant were an ECL 4-6.

Nonetheless, half-giants should have at least +4 Str IMO. Balance it out with a higher LA or with a nice adjustment to Int, and you're set.

At least. An orc (!) has a +4 to Str.