"Giant Types" - Kobolds to Giants?

[Vile Traveller]

I've run across a reference to giant types in the ranger class write-up (Strategic Review vol.1 no.2), although I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere. It says:

"All Rangers gain a special advantage when fighting against monsters of the Giant Class (Kobolds - Giants)."

Is there somewhere else where "giant class" is detailed more thoroughly? What monsters are included, exactly? Kobolds and giants, obviously, but what about ogres, trolls, and anything else? Any advice is greatly appreciated, in aid of my additional holiday BLUEHOLME™ writing thanks to Zenopus and his Holmes Manuscript revelations.

[coffee]

Look at D&D Volume III, p. 18. This gives the Wilderness Wandering Monster tables. In the lower right corner is the list of Giant Types, which does indeed run from Kobolds to Giants (and adds Gnomes - Ents for good measure).

That's about all the detail I'm aware of.

[Red Baron]

The ad&d player's handbook has a list

"Giant class creatures are: bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls."

That's not 3lbb or basic, but its a list of giant class creatures from gary.

[Vile Traveller]

Thanks, that's the kind of thing I expected. I wonder if there is something in Chainmail where this stems from. Gnomes, kobolds, and even dwarfs would make sense from a Norse mythology standpoint, of course.

[Porphyre]

Dec 26, 2013 8:25:38 GMT -6 coffee said:

Look at D&D Volume III, p. 18. This gives the Wilderness Wandering Monster tables. In the lower right corner is the list of Giant Types, which does indeed run from Kobolds to Giants (and adds Gnomes - Ents for good measure).

And elves, too. 

[oakesspalding]

On page 18 of the 5th edition of The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures the full list is:

GIANT TYPES
Kobolds
Goblins
Orcs
Hobgoblins
Gnolls
Ogres
Trolls
Giants
Gnomes
Dwarves
Elves
Ents

So, as far as I can tell in January 1974 "Giant Class" simply means non-human humanoids, although it's sort of a subclass since it doesn't include the three Faerie types--Pixies, Nixies and Dryads--nor other possible bipedal candidates such as Lycanthropes, Gargoyles, Undead or Halflings, nor of course humans. I assume Halflings might have gotten lost in the renaming shuffle from Hobbits.

In Chainmail, Dwarves and Gnomes get a break when being attacked by truly "giant" creatures--Trolls, Ogres and Giants--and exhibit ferocity when attacking Kobolds and Goblins. It seems to me that in the next few years of D&D and AD&D the three definitions--Giant Class as humanoids, Giant Class as giant humanoids and Giant Class as ugly, stupid Koboldy, Gobliny humanoids that have a mutual enmity with Dwarves would sort of get mixed up.

[Porphyre]

Well...
Dwarves speak goblin, don'r they? And elves do speak orc fluently, right?

[oakesspalding]

No, I think you're right. I didn't put it correctly. It's not unreasonable that Gygax and/or Arneson thought that the "Giant Types" were related somehow--genetically, culturally, linguistically or whatever, though I don't think this was ever teased out or explained. Now I want to look at The Players Handbook but I don't have my copy with me.

[Porphyre]

Actually, the interpretation I came with; is that Men are creatures of the Gods (the Law)but elves, drawfs and goblins are all descendants of some primordial Neutral giant-race, akin to the Jotuns of norse myth , thus explaining the fact that elves & dwarfs have no clerics (at least until Suppl 1), even if some of their descendant choose the path of the Law (like dwarfs & some elves), or Chaos (like goblins).

[Red Baron]

Or, since elves, dwarfs, and ents obviously don't fit into the category of dragons, martians, or lycanthropes, they might have just gotten grouped under the "Fairy tale creatures" column with goblins and ogres for space-saving and formatting reasons.

[Porphyre]

Probably, but I find this explanation less amusing than the idea of a Ranger beating the crap out of a party of elves!

[oakesspalding]

The Strategic Review has:

All Rangers gain a special advantage when fighting against monsters of the Giant Class (Kobolds - Giants). For each level they have gained they add +1 to their damage die against these creatures, so a 1st Level Ranger adds +1, a 2nd Level +2, and so on.

(This at a time when the monster classification tables in The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures still presumably "ruled".)

Players Handbook has:

When fighting humanoid-type creatures of the "giant class", listed hereafter, rangers add 1 hit point for each level of experience they have attained to the points of damage scored when they hit in melee combat. Giant class creatures are: bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls. Example: a 5th level ranger hits a bugbear in melee combat, and the damage done to the opponent will be according to the ranger's weapon type, modified by strength, and +5 (for his or her experience level) because the opponent is a bugbear - a "giant class" humanoid.

So it looks like AD&D kept the category (adding in the Bugbears, Ogre Magi and Ettins from Greyhawk/Monster Manual) but kicked the good guys out of it.

That's a very powerful ability that I don't think we appreciated as such when we played AD&D. It's better, for example, than what most any magic sword or weapon gives you, and is especially effective, relatively at least, if playing under the old system where hit dice were six-sided and weapons only did 1-6 points of damage. Under that regime it would on average only take a 10th level "Ranger-Lord" two successful strokes to cut down a Hill Giant, whereas it would take his Fighting-Man brother, the 10th level "standard" Lord, eight strokes.

[Red Baron]

I think elves, dwarfs, and hobbits should be left in so that rangers fighting for the side of chaos still have their combat advantage.

[Porphyre]

Except that Lawful alignment is mandatory for rangers (at least the original version). On the other hand, the Fair Folk
being Neutral (albeit some elves are Lawful), it is possible to find them siding with Chaos (like those in Three Hearts & Three Lions ), so my proposal of Rangers beating the crap out of a bunch of elves still stands

[Red Baron]

Oh, I was remembering the ad&d rule on alignment where they have to be good, but a ranger can be LG, NG, or CG.  I forgot that we're talking about the ranger from the strategic review and 3 alignments.

[Vile Traveller]

There is a balancing factor in that no more than two rangers can operate together at any one time, so you won't get ranger armies wiping out entire 'giant class' populations. But yes, that is an extremely powerful ability even at low levels.

[geoffrey]

It has always amused me that little 3' or 4' tall humanoids are in the "giant" class.

[Vile Traveller]

Going by Norse mythology the table makes sense, although I don't think there were ent-equivalents. All those critters were of the 'giant class', as opposed to the 'god class'.

[Porphyre]

And medieval time tales & romances sometimes depict pairs of brothers, one being a dwarf and the other one a giant.

[Porphyre]

And of course, there is the verses of Beowulf that put elves amongst the giants, ogres and "orcneas"

Þanon untydras ealle onwocon,
eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas,
swylce gigantas, þa wið Gode wunnon

(Of Cain awoke all that woful breed,
Etins and elves and evil-spirits,
as well as the giants that warred with God)