Stone Giant -2 Con

[Lord Of The Nine]

Hello,

I've noticed a good bit of dissapointed feedback on Discord about the recent change to stone giant(SG) stats. With most of the builds I've seen being barb/EDR focused this change hurts the build quite a bit as the +2 wis does not benefit most of the SG builds. Is it possible to offer a bloodline of sorts that enables SG's to choose an extra +2 con in lieu of the extra Wis or some such?

If not, is it possible to allow rebuilds for current SG's to choose a different starting class?

Appreciate your time.

-LOTN

[-XXX-]

RACE ADJUSTMENTS:
Stone Half-Giant: Constitution modifier lowered from +4 to +2
Existing Stone Half-Giants can apply for -setstats with the DMs via forum PMs.

Full update notes here: viewtopic.php?f=23&p=306174#p306174

[Xerah]

This was the best racial bonus out of the giants after the storm change, so this makes a lot of sense.

[Svrtr]

Equally though ice giants still offer a similar bonus, though with elemental vulnerability to fire.

Though the fact is they only really otherwise get +5% slashing DI but didn't even get +2 dex mod to make their overall stat line in-line with a common +4 stat gain overall, now being +2 +2 +2 -4 for a net +2 gain. Some form of compensation probably isn't unwarranted

[Tarkus the dog]

Why a large race with 5-10% physical damage immunity shouldn't have +6 ( or +8 in the case of the ranger ) points to their main abilities shouldn't be too much of a mystery. Give the ranger build a try, they work pretty well with the race. As for the barbarian -- it still works well enough with either 1h or 2h.

[Morto]

This change does seem to pidgeon hole the race more into certain builds.

If the Stone Giant's could get get the get access to Bloodline of the Shaman, like Frost Giants, That would allow some choice as to what penalty is received. (Reducing Either CON OR Wisdom).


As an Aside.
Though, as a rule of Thumb on the scaling of D&D and Arelith, Not all stats are equal. AB/AC/Skills/Reflex trumps HP/Fortitude for most, With that -2 Dex is a more hefty penalty than is gained by the benefits of +2 Con.

[Svrtr]

Why a large race with 5-10% physical damage immunity shouldn't have +6 ( or +8 in the case of the ranger ) points to their main abilities shouldn't be too much of a mystery. Give the ranger build a try, they work pretty well with the race. As for the barbarian -- it still works well enough with either 1h or 2h.

Keep in mind that they get no gifts and by virtue of having +2 in STR and being large, they get

-1 AB, -1 AC, -4 to hide, ms, spot, and listen

So they have worse AB than a human equivalent, with only a bonus really to KD and disarm, and on races like barb get what is a useless stat, while also now being down 3 AC by comparison.

If we compare it to half orc, they are down 2 AB and only gain 5% slashing DI

[AstralUniverse]

Ranger stone giant isnt a thing since cav sword was fixed. The DI% was never a thing ranger cares about since they dont really get to further stack it high with class abilities or any gear (outside of 10% slashing from armor, and maybe 10% bludgeoning from helmet if they gimp themselves). It was still okay-ish because of the +8 in relevant stats and IKD spam but it wasnt all that amazing compared to half-orc and it's a greater award. In comparison, earth giant horc is also greater award and will have about 3 higher ab. I know I refunded my stone giant ranger when cav sword was fixed. So yeah.. I dont think ranger was a problematic build here.

[Tarkus the dog]

Why a large race with 5-10% physical damage immunity shouldn't have +6 ( or +8 in the case of the ranger ) points to their main abilities shouldn't be too much of a mystery. Give the ranger build a try, they work pretty well with the race. As for the barbarian -- it still works well enough with either 1h or 2h.

Keep in mind that they get no gifts and by virtue of having +2 in STR and being large, they get

-1 AB, -1 AC, -4 to hide, ms, spot, and listen

So they have worse AB than a human equivalent, with only a bonus really to KD and disarm, and on races like barb get what is a useless stat, while also now being down 3 AC by comparison.

If we compare it to half orc, they are down 2 AB and only gain 5% slashing DI

Yeah I'm keeping that in mind. I'm also keeping in mind that it's a race that upon drinking a true strike + if they have IKD ( which they should ), they always get a knock down off, as well as that classes other than barbarian exist.

As for the barbarian itself, like i said, the build is entirely fine -- you just have to make some compromises now instead of getting everything on a silver platter. The 8 INT barb itself is untouched, so the 13 INT one just needs to figure out what it wants.

[Sandrow]

They deserve epic toughness and +2 fort save in return of -2 Con

[Zanithar]

So, they deserve to work for the niche they so obviously were created for.

They started out as probably the strongest HGiant race on offer by far. They were very clearly appropriate for the DI/DR niche builds which included (but probably not limited to):
1. Str or EDR Ranger - not great but good
2. Barbarian - OP++
3. Hexblade - OP++
4. Marauder - not great but made already Great Marauder better.

It was called out, when they were released as being stupidly OP. The response by the developer was, from memory: “I built them in line with Drow stat blocks and abilities … they are just fine”.

Scurvy backed up the the general call that they were stupidly OP with the Math (he beat the rest of us to the post but we were all coming up with the same numbers), the DI on the race was nuked down to something reasonable … meaning a sliver better than the other DI non-award and award races IMO, this put the race into a really good spot for its obvious niche, DI/DR builds. It requires a Greater reward, which given that awards are now time/luck gated is not a trivial cost. HStone was top of the pack for EDR builds, it’s stat block inline but slightly superior with its non-reward competition being HOrc, Orog and to a lesser degree Dwarf, Duergar and Human. It had a slight edge over HFrost and HFire. It was, in a good a spot, probably still on the higher end of relative mechanical power across the HGiant and Giant race.

Then, for some reason I am still trying to figure out, there was a decision to nerf it further. Perhaps as Xerah notes it was because it still had a slight bump in stat line relative to other HGiants, but rather than remove the redundant part of the stat line (+2 Wisdom), instead Con was dropped by 2. Essentially erasing the DI/DR racial niche and making a Greater Award reward people spent on “the best DI/DR” chassis now being an award spend on something worse than using HOrc, Orog or even HFire or HFrost.

Now HFire, HFrost, HOrc, Orog are all clearly superior DI/DR selections and Dwarf, Duergar and Human are all competitive choices. Taking HStone from the top of the heap to the bottom of the heap.

All this would have been fine, if it had been released like this or if some attempt had been made to keep the niche the race clearly slid into viable.

The thing that makes it really brutal however is that it is a Greater Award race, that was called out as OP upon release and we were told … no, it is all good. So people spent awards on it. Awards that are now, due or other changes, essentially impossible to replace. If the race had been decreased in power but held in line with what everyone spent it on, it would have been manageable. But it was not, it was nerfed the the point of being irrelevant within the niche it was originally released into.

And that is exceptionally hard to swallow.

What should have probably happened is that it should have been reviewed with some level of consideration for the people that selected it and how they used it. If that had been the case, it would likely have been altered to match the other HGiant races and ended up something like:

+2 Str, +4 Con, -4 Dex

Bloodline Revered: -2 Con, +2 Wis (or -2 Str, +2 Wis)

To allow the folks that spent a non-replaceable award on the strongest HGiant racial release to not end up with burning it what has become the weakest HGiant racial release post release over two nerfs AND is no longer suitable for the niche everyone counted on it for and used it for.

My 2 cents.

[Kenji]

[Aren]

I'm usually the one calling other people out for dev-bashing or being ill-mannered towards you guys, because I think you guys deserve recognition for your hard work, that you do for free.
But I have to say, that something like this post here Kenji, does not do you service. It comes off as kind of rude. : /

I get that you guys deal with a lot of unwanted and unwarranted flack, but if you want people on here to approach you in a respectful manner when providing feedback, I would at least hope you would show them the same courtesy.

[Arienette]

On Aren’s post: Par for the course.

On Zanithar’s post: Very good job of explaining that this Stone Giant nerf, similar to another in this round of nerfs, goes beyond “making this thing a little less good than it was” territory and into “this thing is totally ruined” territory.

Which sucks.

[Zanithar]

On Zanithar’s post: Very good job of explaining that this Stone Giant nerf, similar to another in this round of nerfs, goes beyond “making this thing a little less good than it was” territory and into “this thing is totally ruined” territory.

Which sucks.

I sit mentally on both sides of this, I mean it is always difficult to be impacted by a series of negative changes. It is worse when you are told everything is fine prior and even worse when you lose something that is irreplaceable. However, sometimes it is also necessary.

In this particular case, I don’t see why it was necessary. It just seems like peoples builds and their investment in an irreplaceable thing was ruined because nobody cared to consider how to do it in a minimally impacting way. I could, of course, be missing something but I am not alone in this assessment.

As for Kenji, I choose not to be baited. I will say it takes thought and effort to offer logic based feedback (which you consistently ask for) particularly when something is so impacting to someone. Each time it is treated with distain, it makes it harder to believe spending the time to offer well thought out feedback the next time is worthwhile.

[Kenji]

Let me start by recognizing the efforts Zanithar has made by contributing to the Arelith Wiki and allowing many users to have clarity over many of the minute Arelith changes that were made. Thank you, Zanithar. Your time and effort as a Wiki editor are much appreciated.

But let's be clear here, is not a salt gif, nor is it anything derogatory. I can only assume it was taken the wrong way as a sign of how I portray myself. That's on me. But all it took was one singular emoji, and it was then assumed to be posted out of malice and contempt.

So, they deserve to work for the niche they so obviously were created for.

They started out as probably the strongest HGiant race on offer by far. They were very clearly appropriate for the DI/DR niche builds which included (but probably not limited to):
1. Str or EDR Ranger - not great but good
2. Barbarian - OP++
3. Hexblade - OP++
4. Marauder - not great but made already Great Marauder better.

It was called out, when they were released as being stupidly OP. The response by the developer was, from memory: “I built them in line with Drow stat blocks and abilities … they are just fine”.

Scurvy backed up the the general call that they were stupidly OP with the Math (he beat the rest of us to the post but we were all coming up with the same numbers), the DI on the race was nuked down to something reasonable … meaning a sliver better than the other DI non-award and award races IMO, this put the race into a really good spot for its obvious niche, DI/DR builds. It requires a Greater reward, which given that awards are now time/luck gated is not a trivial cost. HStone was top of the pack for EDR builds, it’s stat block inline but slightly superior with its non-reward competition being HOrc, Orog and to a lesser degree Dwarf, Duergar and Human. It had a slight edge over HFrost and HFire. It was, in a good a spot, probably still on the higher end of relative mechanical power across the HGiant and Giant race.

Then, for some reason I am still trying to figure out, there was a decision to nerf it further. Perhaps as Xerah notes it was because it still had a slight bump in stat line relative to other HGiants, but rather than remove the redundant part of the stat line (+2 Wisdom), instead Con was dropped by 2. Essentially erasing the DI/DR racial niche and making a Greater Award reward people spent on “the best DI/DR” chassis now being an award spend on something worse than using HOrc, Orog or even HFire or HFrost.

Now HFire, HFrost, HOrc, Orog are all clearly superior DI/DR selections and Dwarf, Duergar and Human are all competitive choices. Taking HStone from the top of the heap to the bottom of the heap.

All this would have been fine, if it had been released like this or if some attempt had been made to keep the niche the race clearly slid into viable.

The thing that makes it really brutal however is that it is a Greater Award race, that was called out as OP upon release and we were told … no, it is all good. So people spent awards on it. Awards that are now, due or other changes, essentially impossible to replace. If the race had been decreased in power but held in line with what everyone spent it on, it would have been manageable. But it was not, it was nerfed the the point of being irrelevant within the niche it was originally released into.

And that is exceptionally hard to swallow.

What should have probably happened is that it should have been reviewed with some level of consideration for the people that selected it and how they used it. If that had been the case, it would likely have been altered to match the other HGiant races and ended up something like:

+2 Str, +4 Con, -4 Dex

Bloodline Revered: -2 Con, +2 Wis (or -2 Str, +2 Wis)

To allow the folks that spent a non-replaceable award on the strongest HGiant racial release to not end up with burning it what has become the weakest HGiant racial release post release over two nerfs AND is no longer suitable for the niche everyone counted on it for and used it for.

My 2 cents.

630 words

Let's address what Zanithar posted first. The above post is, in fact, a mainly subjective post that builds on what Scurvy and I have posted in our previous back-and-forth, links here:

Scurvy's Initial Assessment: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=38452#p301709
My first response and change: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=38452#p301854
Scurvy's second assessment in response to the change: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=38452#p301862
My second response to justify why half-giants can be designed around Drow: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=38452&start=25#p301911
Scurvy's disagreement on why the justification may not be warranted: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=38452&start=25#p301917
My response to Scurvy's disagreement as a rebuttal to some of the things pointed out: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=38452&start=25#p301920
And that was the end of the response.

These are the parts I'd consider something that's somewhat objective to the case at hand:

Scurvy backed up the the general call that they were stupidly OP with the Math (he beat the rest of us to the post but we were all coming up with the same numbers), the DI on the race was nuked down to something reasonable … meaning a sliver better than the other DI non-award and award races IMO, this put the race into a really good spot for its obvious niche, DI/DR builds. It requires a Greater reward, which given that awards are now time/luck gated is not a trivial cost. HStone was top of the pack for EDR builds, it’s stat block inline but slightly superior with its non-reward competition being HOrc, Orog and to a lesser degree Dwarf, Duergar and Human. It had a slight edge over HFrost and HFire. It was, in a good a spot, probably still on the higher end of relative mechanical power across the HGiant and Giant race.

Perhaps as Xerah notes it was because it still had a slight bump in stat line relative to other HGiants, but rather than remove the redundant part of the stat line (+2 Wisdom), instead Con was dropped by 2. Essentially erasing the DI/DR racial niche and making a Greater Award reward people spent on “the best DI/DR” chassis now being an award spend on something worse than using HOrc, Orog or even HFire or HFrost.

+2 Str, +4 Con, -4 Dex

Bloodline Revered: -2 Con, +2 Wis (or -2 Str, +2 Wis)

244 words

With these parts add to the conversation rather than being a recitation of what was already posted and discussed.

remove the redundant part of the stat line (+2 Wisdom), instead Con was dropped by 2.

+2 Str, +4 Con, -4 Dex

Bloodline Revered: -2 Con, +2 Wis (or -2 Str, +2 Wis)

31 words

Here are the statistics:
244 out of 630 words are about the mechanics of the stone half-giant (38%), with 31 out of 630 words being the part that adds to the feedback process, which is 5% of the post that can truly be considered constructive for the thought process.

The post is more of a statement to help everyone catch up to what's happening rather than a conversation. Forgive me if I don't want to respond to the entire post because it is statistically subjective in the majority. I suppose the professional response would've been simply targeting the above quote and responding from there.

But that's where we all need to recognize the distinguishment. I am not a professional, nor do I do this for monetary gains, fame, kudos, ego, or power. I am doing this because I am first a player, just like any of you, and have a passion for all things Arelith. Second, I want a creative outlet that is flexible for my time. Third, I missed my calling as a professional game developer (probably for the best, given all this) and wanted a taste of what game development is like in a team without making it a career choice.

Let's not end things there, however. The reduction in the con is, in fact, not because of my discussion with Scurvy but because of the latest census on half-giant:
Out of all the half-giants created since their release, 19 were Stone Half-Giants, more than all the other half-giants combined. This was concerning because, as Scurvy and many others pointed out, Stone Half-Giants were likely chosen due to their mechanical prowess rather than their roleplaying potential. While that is okay, and I certainly have done it myself, I do not want to see the history of "[INSERT OP STUFF] Summer" repeating itself: Stone Half-Giant EDR Summer will be memed on along with Monk and Archer summer with my name on it.

I agree that the nerf on Stone Half-Giants might be a bit more heavy-handed than intended. It can certainly have a bloodline to cater to both wisdom caster and con-based builds.

But that could have easily been relayed with, "Hey Kenji, the Stone HGiant nerf is a bit heavy-handed. Can we have a bloodline that trades Wis for Con?"

And I would've been very happy to oblige, rather than go through 95% of a post only to find 5% of that part where it matters within that post. Ironically this isn't the first time, either. The same thing happened to 2H finesse weapons and Rogue builds.

-------
Statistics of my post:
597 words

The important part:

I agree that the nerf on Stone Half-Giants might be a bit more heavy-handed than intended. It can certainly have a bloodline to cater to both wisdom caster and con-based builds.

31 words

5%

[Bees in Space]

genuinely curious to know what the sunglasses emoji post was intended to convey

[Kenji]

genuinely curious to know what the sunglasses emoji post was intended to convey

"I'm reading all this but have yet to decide on the course of action. Keep posting, and maybe we'll get somewhere. I also don't want anyone to see past my poker face and tell which options are favored."

[Arienette]

I have trouble with this idea that any conversation surrounding feedback (mechanical or otherwise) needs to be, should be, or even can be purely objective.

Presumably, various people on the team have to make judgement calls that are at least partially subjective when it comes to these changes.

XYX is over-tuned, or under tuned. ABC is over-represented or under-representative. 123 is too high or too low, or any of another dozen examples.

Obviously these sort of judgements should (and do) have some objective basis. For example, to say that half of all giants made so far have been stone giants is an objective statement. To say that this is a problem is a subjective judgement call.

Perhaps another contributing factor is the appearance. Of the three half-giant types that are available as greater awards, stone Giant is the only one that doesn’t use the “oversized dwarf” model. I personally think the oversized dwarf look is sort of goofy and not very pleasing to the eye, and almost everyone I have spoken with about it agrees. We can’t know how much of the disparity is due to the mechanical differences and how much is due to the aesthetic ones. I know players who straight up refuse to play minotaurs and goblins because they cannot manipulate the outfits. But I digress.

The broader point is that the it is natural for player feedback to have a subjective cast to it.

“This thing was reduced/increased by #, and I think that is too much because of my experience/opinion which is as follows…”

I mean, what other form is feedback supposed to take?

[Kenji]

I have trouble with this idea that any conversation surrounding feedback (mechanical or otherwise) needs to be, should be, or even can be purely objective.

Presumably, various people on the team have to make judgement calls that are at least partially subjective when it comes to these changes.

XYX is over-tuned, or under tuned. ABC is over-represented or under-representative. 123 is too high or too low, or any of another dozen examples.

Obviously these sort of judgements should (and do) have some objective basis. For example, to say that half of all giants made so far have been stone giants is an objective statement. To say that this is a problem is a subjective judgement call.

Perhaps another contributing factor is the appearance. Of the three half-giant types that are available as greater awards, stone Giant is the only one that doesn’t use the “oversized dwarf” model. I personally think the oversized dwarf look is sort of goofy and not very pleasing to the eye, and almost everyone I have spoken with about it agrees. We can’t know how much of the disparity is due to the mechanical differences and how much is due to the aesthetic ones. I know players who straight up refuse to play minotaurs and goblins because they cannot manipulate the outfits. But I digress.

The broader point is that the it is natural for player feedback to have a subjective cast to it.

“This thing was reduced/increased by #, and I think that is too much because of my experience/opinion which is as follows…”

I mean, what other form is feedback supposed to take?

That's the thing:
If one wants to post subjective posts about their feelings, emotions, and opinions, that's fine. I'm not here to impede one's freedom of speech, whatever that is on the borderless internet. I just wouldn't care because that's not what I'm here for, simple.

But the problem became apparent here when some took offense to me taking the objective stance, which requires ignoring the subjective part of the feedback to achieve objectivity without being swayed by bias.

[Sandrow]

I'm pretty sure that one reason that there are more Stone Giants than any other giants is because everybody is talking about builds of them. It's simple to follow what others had write down and follow.

While actually fire Hgiants and frost Hgiants are actually great on PVE stuff: you can learn and avoid those vulnerable environments and stays in environments that you immune. Such as fighting in RDI as fire hgant or exploring the dark spire as a frost one.

I was thinking of making a half-orc Fire genasi SS Marauder as a red dragon killer. Surely fire giants can do that better. So that's my opinion: we need some wisdom and creation shared from builders such as Kenji . Even is they are just some meme build with 80% elemental di and 20 elemental dr. And you'll see swarms of players pour into these giants just of that fun of bathing in ice storms or dragon breath.

[Kenji]

Obviously these sort of judgements should (and do) have some objective basis. For example, to say that half of all giants made so far have been stone giants is an objective statement. To say that this is a problem is a subjective judgement call.

See, that's the "data analysis" part of it. The popularity of any class, race, and concept is often determined by appearance, mechanics, and other minor stuffs such as reward gates.

Humans are among the most populous of the base races, then elves. There are some arguments to be made about appearance vs mechanics vs whatever you want to put up there, but half-giants are on a different basis for comparison.

The half-giants are all customizable, their lore has to share certain similarities being that they are all half-giants, the main differences are 2 of them are major rewards, and 3 of them are greater rewards.

We then look at the 3 HGiants for comparison, one bigger blue dwarf, one bigger red dwarf, and one bigger grey human. The majority of the feedback I have gathered thus far through various channels is Stone HGiants were chosen over Fire and Frost HGiants for their mechanical prowess. I won't deny appearance may have played into that, but a disparity of 19 stone hgiant to 5 fire/frost hgiant is an 79% of the same-tier reward hgiants being Stone, 21% being Fire/Frost combined.

Humans take up 42% of the server populace, Dwarves take up 7.5% of the server populace, which meant they're 75/25 relative to each other. This is actually close if we want to quantize appearance as a determining factor.

I concluded that Stone HGiants were OP, and the statistics and qualitative analysis point to that conclusion, in which the mechanical imbalance is considered a problem to be resolved.

How does one define mechanical imbalance, and what are its determining factors? That's a discussion for another time, another thread.

[Zanithar]

Quick summary for Kenji
I am fine with you carving out the bit that is useful for you Kenji. I actually expect it, I do the same. If you jump to the bottom of my dissertations you will generally find the conclusions, assuming I guess correctly on the why of the situation when we are not told the why what happened. It should generally spare you the need to spend the 60 seconds to skim a couple of paragraphs if you find yourself pressed for time, or quite understandably and I take no offense, the interest to do so.

My Thoughts
This actually is the reason I do not like forums in general. They are not fluid enough and it takes a lot more effort and writing to gather together salient points across multiple contributors or to shift the argument and build the position behind what you to believe is relevant and work to separate this from the broader noise.

When this is the sum total of what you have to work with:

Stone Half-Giant: Constitution modifier lowered from +4 to +2
Existing Stone Half-Giants can apply for -setstats with the DMs via forum PMs.

It is hard to provide an entirely objective position because frankly you are guessing at what the heck happened. The background becomes important, the impact of each step becomes important ... the story becomes important in defining the relevance of the issue.

Meaning if HStone Giants were released in this state, nobody would bat an eye. The very key issue is they were not, people jumped on them and spent a bunch of rewards. Although I do not have access to the database, I would guess almost all of them (possibly every last one of them) were DI/DR builds. To understand why -2 CON is so significant ... we need to understand both this and the prior nerf and what they do to the existing population of HStone Giants.

It gets harder yet when you realize this is a discussion forum. Meaning, in addition to providing developer feedback, you also need to identify, promote and defend a position as part of the broader discussion which is including people that do not have the race, have not considered the race but are weighing in as part of the discussion and many just wondering why people consider this an important issue at all. For these people, it is very important to identify the "how did we get here" part of story and important for them to offer their "how did we get here" part of the story ... this is how we build a discussion.

Then add to it the reality of the impact. In some cases your favourite character just got dinged and you do not understand how to correct it. In others, a core mechanic that completely and utter breaks a particular niche build with no option of any redemption is changed and never announced and you are left struggling with nobody answering if it was even a deliberate change whilst also trying to make sense of it to help other players and document it on the wiki (our last difficult discussion).

In this one, invalidating an irreplaceable reward for the majority of the reward holders with a one line notice in the middle of a massive update leaving everyone wondering what the hell happened and how can we even begin to fix this for our characters let alone how to cope with and understand a massive mechanical devaluation of our award. It is easy to dismiss this as a "heavy handed adjustment" but it goes beyond that, at least for me. It was enough that I have decided to step away from Arelith completely. Amusingly enough, like many prior to me, it seems there is a "I am still willing to step in and offer support to other people impacted by offering feedback on the forum" step prior to completely stepping away. But I am left disappointed and tired more and more these days,which under reflection is not why I play any game. Then, my one Greater Award ever just got tossed in the bin with a one line entry in the middle of a massive release. There are plenty of things in RL that would leave me disappointed and tired if I did not actively avoid them, I do not need that from a game I play for fun.

So, while I completely understand a near zero communication position regarding nerfs, the flip side is sometimes you find yourself wading through some subjective positioning to get to what is the useful nugget for you because we are also struggling to understand the why of it. Sometimes you are wading through a bit of a dissertation as we work to identify the "how did we get here" as part of the "what the hell just happened" so we can get to the "why was this deemed necessary" and ultimately get to the "here is my suggestion as to how to make it better".

Anyway, if I wander back this way at some point, and offer feedback, I'll make a note to remind you that the TDLR is at the bottom by convention predating the idea of TDLR and one I also subscribe to so you do not have to read all the subjective stuff (at least on my feedback), if you want to skip it.

Please note however, I moved the TDLR to the top for you in this essay.

[Svrtr]

So, while I do think that the heavy handed retroactive removal of the 2 CON to give the stone giants 2 WIS, CON, and STR while retaining the -4 DEX is a bit much, given they now are statistically worse for gain than humans and fill a specific niche while having just 5% more slashing DI, I would 100% be in favor of seeing them have a +2 str +4 con approach while having their own sage gift to make them be able to trade 2 CON for 4 WIS like do frost giants.


That said, talk of dwarf model vs human model aside, while they are now statistically worse it does bring up a point. Would this be the equivalent malus to the vulnerabilities of frost and fire giants then? Having -4 dex instead of -2 like the other two? Or else would consideration be given to make them only have -2 dex but to have then the vulnerabilities of frost and fire giants reduced? While thematic, it is kinda rough, especially given how common both elements are in PvE.

Otherwise, if it was made +2 +4 and a bloodline for +2 +2 +2 was made, I think stone giants would be in a great spot again.

[xanrael]

As a player I've learned that unlike let's say 5 years ago, the development and feedback cycle is much shorter so I don't expect anything to stay in a stable state for a long time period, especially something that could be meta defining.

The benefit of that is I get to play a lot of new classes, races, and mechanics in a short time period. The downside of that is my character may not work in exactly the same manner 2 months from now as today (in a nerfed way). I've found keeping that in mind when creating and playing a character has served me well.