In R.A. Salvatores series the Cleric quintet there is a Firbolg character in one of the books and it states that as a racial trait he has the ability to shrink himself to the size of a large man at will. I have scoured the net and cant find anything to back this up does anyone know if theres any basis to it? --M Helvi'virr 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Firbolgs, in both 1E and 2E had the ability to use 'reduce' as a spell like ability. When 3E came along then changed the spell like powers for some reason. The Cleric Quintet is written by the 2E rules, so Vander can shrink. (Bloodtide 02:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
Exactly how large are Firbolgs? 76.109.132.193 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)*
- In the Realms, between 101⁄2 and more than 11 feet tall. ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:21, December 5, 2016 (UTC)
Appearance discrepancy[]
The description lists skin color as blue, but the stats section as pinkish, is it either, or one or the other? ````GryphonArgent
- The 1e to 4e sources describe them as "fleshy pink", so I've corrected the article to reflect this. The 5e sources seem to have made them blueish, but someone else with the book would need to check that. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:29, November 21, 2017 (UTC)
- The 5e version may be so different as to demand a split. I like a lot of what 5e has done, but they have seriously messed with several creatures.
- (Tavis Burdun had a significant role in my campaign, so I care a lot about this topic.)
- I finally got around to reading a copy of Volo's Guide to Monsters. Strangely, there is no in text description of firbolgs apart from their size. They are never said to have blue skin, red noses, or pointed ears, as the 5e art has. This seems to be one of those cases where the artist simply ignored all previous lore about firbolgs. ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:06, May 14, 2018 (UTC)
- Did you mean Volo's Guide to Monsters? The size discrepancy between 5e and earlier editions, as mentioned in note 3, is due to Volo's making firbolgs a playable race. All official playable races are M or S, so a 10-foot 800-pound firbolg (as described in earlier editions) would break the system in 5e. Adoxos (talk) 21:44, March 29, 2019 (UTC)
- Explorer's Guide to Wildemount canonizes the 5e artistic representation by describing them in that book. Unless you think that's ONLY canon to Wildemount, despite using the same artwork as a book that assumes Forgotten Realms as the setting? Marandahir (talk) 15:19, March 31, 2020 (UTC)
- Oh I absolutely understand that – my point was more that the Realms-canon book VGtM doesn't describe Firbolgs, but depicts them in the exact same appearance that they are in the non-Realms-canon EGtWM, where they have the exact same stats and features as in VGtM, but the book actually describes them exactly as depicted. Understandably, races can be culturally and appear different from world to world. But racial features ALSO change from edition to edition – Firbolgs have different innate spells in 5e than they did in some earlier Realmslore. Does that mean that their innate magic spells are non-canon? No, because canon evolves as creators revise the setting. That's why we had the Spellplague, and why a bunch of things from 4e Realms have disappeared as of 5e. The canon changes, and there can be official rationales or there might not be. But officially, IN 5th EDITION, Firbolgs in the Realms can at least look like they do in the picture in VGtM. That's a book in-universe written by a scholar of the Realms. And EGtWM may be tangential evidence, but it is evidence of the intention behind 5e Firbolgs (which, by the way, the latter book does NOT say they must have blue skin and lack red beards – quite the opposite, it gives a range of appearances from blue to ruddy red hair). The floppy pointed ears and camelid nose are pretty hard to get rid of though. It just seems like WILLFUL ignorance to say that we're going to assume that the picture in VGtM is wrong. But hey, this is
wikiaFandom. I'm just one small voice in a sea of fans. Marandahir (talk) 20:55, March 31, 2020 (UTC)
- Oh I absolutely understand that – my point was more that the Realms-canon book VGtM doesn't describe Firbolgs, but depicts them in the exact same appearance that they are in the non-Realms-canon EGtWM, where they have the exact same stats and features as in VGtM, but the book actually describes them exactly as depicted. Understandably, races can be culturally and appear different from world to world. But racial features ALSO change from edition to edition – Firbolgs have different innate spells in 5e than they did in some earlier Realmslore. Does that mean that their innate magic spells are non-canon? No, because canon evolves as creators revise the setting. That's why we had the Spellplague, and why a bunch of things from 4e Realms have disappeared as of 5e. The canon changes, and there can be official rationales or there might not be. But officially, IN 5th EDITION, Firbolgs in the Realms can at least look like they do in the picture in VGtM. That's a book in-universe written by a scholar of the Realms. And EGtWM may be tangential evidence, but it is evidence of the intention behind 5e Firbolgs (which, by the way, the latter book does NOT say they must have blue skin and lack red beards – quite the opposite, it gives a range of appearances from blue to ruddy red hair). The floppy pointed ears and camelid nose are pretty hard to get rid of though. It just seems like WILLFUL ignorance to say that we're going to assume that the picture in VGtM is wrong. But hey, this is
- Obviously, as a DM, you are welcome to make firbolgs appear any way that you like in the Realms, but this current wiki is a lore-based wiki. And our policy is to never throw out old lore just because some new book decided to ignore it. The lore is what is recorded in sourcebooks and other textual sources, which has a very long history of information about firbolgs, including descriptions of what they look like.
- If a new source "takes away" a power or ability, we do not interpret that to mean that the creature suddenly no longer has that ability. We simply say, "some sources report this power," and, "some sources report some other power." We don't—at least editors are not supposed to—say, "This creature had this power until after the Second Sundering and then the gods changed the way all of them looked drastically." We do not do that unless, as did happen in some cases, a sourcebook specifically provides the lore for this. It is ridiculous to assume that creatures grew arms when they never used to have them or suddenly gained floppy ears when they used to have normal ones. We are not a crunch wiki; we are a canon lore wiki. If there is a conflict in the canon, we report both views on the lore and allow the readers to decide.
- On this wiki, we also do not count art as canon material. Art is an interpretation by artists, who were not designers of the lore. There are many occasions when sourcebooks have even reused art for other purposes with blatant contradictions, such as reusing the image of a cleric of one deity for a cleric of another deity when the art blatantly shows the first deity's holy symbol. There are, as I noted, artists who wrongly draw arms on creatures that do not have them and forget to draw legs on creatures that do. We count the text as the correct sources on all these things.
- Note that we do not ignore the 5e artwork for firbolgs. There is no ignorance here. No, we display it and acknowledge the lore conflict and have a note explaining the situation, so that DMs can make up their own minds. I am not saying categorically that they don't have cow noses; I am saying that we assume it to be in error, since it is a drastic change from past sources. Maybe it was an intentional decision on the part of the designers; we really have no idea. If I removed the earlier lore, that would be ignorant of the earlier lore.
- If I DM an FR campaign that I've been playing since v.3.5, I am not about to change how firbolgs in my version of the FR look, just because I may have switched to using 5e. 5e is just a ruleset; it in no way invalidates literally decades of published lore. On the other hand, if I am starting an FR campaign from scratch and want cow-nosed, floppy eared firbolgs, I can do whatever I want. It would be wrong for us, however, on this wiki to retroactively say that all the notable firbolgs from the 4 prior editions had floppy ears.
- I think the note should be considered for removal at this point. For one, it's treating art design as lesser than text description for the purposes of official content. And while certainly in the past art design often ignored text descriptions (such as gnomes typically being depicted with fair skin while described as having tan to brown skin), this design was reviewed and chosen. We can see from the concept art in Dragon+ issue 11 this was a chosen design from Shawn Wood. This same artwork is reused in Mordenkainen Present's Monsters of the Multiverse. Also this design is used again in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything page 147 (A picture caption 'Warriors,left to right: an aasimar, a firbolg, and a wolf" by April Prime), and again on page 5 of MPMMotM (by Zuzanna Wuuyk I believe- can't find it on her sites, but this is the image I am mentioning. This isn't 'an assumed artist's error' as the note says this is clearly the new 5e design of Firbolg as applied to FR and in general. We can also see some of these new design choices appear in the novels, such as "Her bright red hair made her gray skin shine in the dappled light under the trees" a description of Jowenys, a firbolg, from 'Honor Among Thieves: The Druid's Call'
- Mozzeltoff (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Art contradicting descriptions within the same edition is a common issue and because of that art can not be considered fully canon. There is no Realmsian appearance to date that describes a firbolg as having bovine features. Red hair and gray skin is in no way a confirmation of erroneous art, be it internationally intended by wotc or not.-Artyom.pavlov (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Good Article status[]
- Correct
- yes
- Referenced
- yes
- Formatted
- yes
- Clean
- yes
- Nearly complete
- yes
- Policy-adherent/Demonstrative
- yes
More Info About Firbolgs[]
Firbolgs are giants. Also the only reason Firbolgs look the way they do in 5E is because they were touched my the Fey. They are 10ft tall and have pinkish skin as well red colored hair which was more common among Firbolgs. So please change the info please. If you want more info check this mans YouTube video about Firbolgs which in my opinion is updated info for today's standards. I highly recommend watching his D&D videos.
The mans YouTube name is MrRhexx: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiMIeIhx3a-F1In-PQuRO7g
Alan,Of,Little,Rock August 27, 2019
- We are concerned with official sources, not random YouTube channels. --Ir'revrykal (talk) 07:53, August 28, 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the article already is very clear that firbolgs are giants and the connection to the Feywild is also mentioned in the infobox. ~ Lhynard (talk) 12:26, August 28, 2019 (UTC)
Firbolg is a Plural[]
There are a ton of references to "a" (singular) firbolg. Fir means "men" plural. One can be of the firbolg, but one is not a firbolg. And of course "Firbolgs" is tantamount to "hobitses", it sounds infantile.
If Perkins can keep track of Romani analogue plurals, so can you do the same for other peoples.
Firbolg is Mispronounced[]
That's not how you pronounce "bolg". It's closer to "bohl-lug".
The different dialects: https://www.teanglann.ie/en/fuaim/bolg
All together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEZ65_vf_ew – User:ROONOCERUS
- None of this has any rations to the Forgotten Realms and is beyond the scope of documenting published canon material. -Artyom.pavlov (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with Lore is right. It's pure semantics. This isn't an instance of "that's a gorgon not a medusa", this is you mispronouncing a word. If the page was titled "Chitin Monster" and you pronounced it "Chit-en", you'd be wrong, because it's a word that exists and is being borrowed by this game. Right now you're defending a grammatical error. – User:ROONOCERUS
- The wiki collects published lore and we have official provocation for firbolgs - see citation. Whether it is correct in real world or not is irrelevant. If you can find a sourcebook or official/licensed source with another pronunciation, then it can be added. Otherwise - no. -Artyom.pavlov (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Explain the Geas page. – User:ROONOCERUS
- See citations. -Artyom.pavlov (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- What am I looking for? I see a notes section explaining the correct original pronunciation, and an external links section pointing to what a Geas means in folklore. I did this for the Firbolg page, and now you're taking exception. – User:ROONOCERUS
- Each pronunciation has a little number next to it. Click on it to see where the pronunciation was listed in published dnd material.-Artyom.pavlov (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Except for the one I am talking about, which has been at the bottom of the page under the notes section with no citation since ... it would seem the page's lifetime. And then the following external links section gives greater explanation. That's lovely, I love that. All I want to do is the same as the Geas page, which boils down to, "We acknowledge that this game was written by an unlearned man in the midwest United states who messed up just about every single irish word in the Dragon Magazine #93 pronunciation guide. Don't sound like an amathon in front of your grandma, here's how you say it, and here's some additional reading." – User:ROONOCERUS
- This can be done but without editorializing. And should be in Appendix under OOU trivia. But other editors might disagree.-Artyom.pavlov (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Except for the one I am talking about, which has been at the bottom of the page under the notes section with no citation since ... it would seem the page's lifetime. And then the following external links section gives greater explanation. That's lovely, I love that. All I want to do is the same as the Geas page, which boils down to, "We acknowledge that this game was written by an unlearned man in the midwest United states who messed up just about every single irish word in the Dragon Magazine #93 pronunciation guide. Don't sound like an amathon in front of your grandma, here's how you say it, and here's some additional reading." – User:ROONOCERUS
- Aaaaaand it's been locked with an external link without the clarification on actual correct pronunciation. Great double-standard guys. Fantastic cultural erasure. Pristine wiki page. – User:ROONOCERUS
- Hi. Thank you for pointing out the issue on the geas page. That was an old note intended to be helpful regarding an unusual word, but it's unreferenced and has been superseded by our newer pronunciation guides. I've now removed that footnote. The wiki is an evolving project.
- And this is a Forgotten Realms and D&D wiki. Obviously. Our purpose is not to detail real-world myth and language, so we only make brief explanations and links to where more information can be found. Your explanations were excessive, had no link to a source, and assumed the rules of real-world myth and language should apply to the D&D version, when they do not. If they did, absolutely every piece of lore and terminology would be out the window.
- Moreover, your remarks were rude and overly critical of the various writers involved. Issues and errors should be discussed in a fair and non-judgemental way, not with attacks and editorializing.
- Since you persisted in re-adding rather than discussing, you made it edit-warring, which is a lockable, and even blockable, issue on most wikis. Lucky for you I only locked it.
- What is the above other than discussing? The only person who had umbrage gave specific parameters, and I tried to meet them.
- I'm not asking to put a lore dump, I'm not asking for players to learn a new language, I'm just asking for what every other unoriginal monster has: the correct pronunciation. It's downright offensive. The only difficulty here is that the original authors put in zero effort to obtain correct pronunciation for a language they didn't know in a magazine in 1985, and that error has propagated to the point where the unrelated people who bought the game license don't care to check past work for shoddiness, and long-time fans treat typos as gospel. It's like the two groups live in two completely separate spheres. This is wrong. (I hope I'm doing the signature right?) ROONOCERUS (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)