D&D 5E New Unearthed Arcana Today: Giant Themed Class Options and Feats

A new Unearthed Arcana dropped today, focusing on giant-themed player options. "In today’s Unearthed Arcana, we explore character options related to the magic and majesty of giants. This playtest document presents the Path of the Giant barbarian subclass, the Circle of the Primeval druid subclass, the Runecrafter wizard subclass, and a collection of new feats, all for use in Dungeons & Dragons."

Giant Options | Unearthed Arcana | Dungeons & Dragons

Explore character options related to the magic and majesty of giants! This playtest document presents new subclasses for the barbarian, druid, and wizard, and a collection of new feats, all for use in Dungeons & Dragons.

dnd.wizards.com

New Class options:

• Barbarian: Path of the Giant
• Druid: Circle of the Primeval
• Wizard: Runecrafter Tradition

New Feats:

• Elemental Touched
• Ember of the Fire Giant
• Fury of the Frost Giant
• Guile of the Cloud Giant
• Keeness of the Stone Giant
• Outsized Might
• Rune Carver Apprentice
• Rune Carvwr Adept
• Soul of the Storm Giant
• Vigor of the Hill Giant

WotC's Jeremy Crawford talks Barbarian Path of the Giant here:

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think they mean multiverse like Doctor Strange, but rather like D&D always meant it: all the planes and campaign settings. Only now, they reconfigured it so it can all be considered one big Dungeons & Dragons(TM) brand.

A more conventional multiverse, as depicted in most speculative fiction, would be amazing, but far beyond WotC's abilities from what I've seen.

I really am incredibly skeptical of your apparent idea that they're going to tie all existing and future D&D settings into being the product of the First World. I don't see any good reason to believe that. I'm sure they'll make it ambiguous enough that you can believe that if you want, or not if you don't.

And yeah, sure, they are trying to unify the brand, but there's no earthly reason that would mean making hard links between settings. They'll be soft and ambiguous ones.

They published Eberron decades ago, back when they a few shreds of creativity left (at least enough to recognize Keith Baker had a salable idea). No way would something like that pass muster today.

That is my main concern here, yeah.

Nothing about 5E's world/setting design has shown much in the way of originality or even development. The most impressive thing has been Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, which whilst it didn't please everyone, and didn't spend enough time on the setting (too much on adventure/bestiary or just not enough pages), did at least make some attempt to make the setting interesting and jazz it up a bit rather than just making it more generic than ever. It's not to everyone's taste, but it's like, an actual artistic choice, not merely a corporate one.

But it's a very low bar.

Spelljammer can't possibly do much in 64 pages. Strixhaven was the opposite of original/developed, just making the MtG setting more fluffy and less exciting/dangerous, which is just a wildly corporate choice, frankly. All the MtG settings were, well, MtG settings.

So if anything exciting is going to happen setting-wise in 5E at all it's basically all one the final classic setting to come back, and the two new settings, and it seems unlikely they'll do much. I guess Dragonlance too - it'll probably have more setting material than Spelljammer at this rate!

 

[Parmandur]

I really am incredibly skeptical of your apparent idea that they're going to tie all existing and future D&D settings into being the product of the First World. I don't see any good reason to believe that. I'm sure they'll make it ambiguous enough that you can believe that if you want, or not if you don't.

And yeah, sure, they are trying to unify the brand, but there's no earthly reason that would mean making hard links between settings. They'll be soft and ambiguous ones.

I think Micah is keying off of some of the wilder speculation, because I am also pretty sure he hasn't read Fizban's very low key myth.

 

[Blue]

It's only a couple of feats. If it was 3 or 4 then maybe that would be bad, but a single feat needing one other feat isn't much of a feat chain.

Nope, still boo. Most campaigns I play in end (well) before 12th. So unless I'm playign a class with extra feats, it's two feats over the entire year long campaign. A single requirement means that every single ASI/feat I get for the entire campaign must be sunk into it.

No, with the slow rate of feats in 5e and the known-by-WotC-by-Survey campaign ending level, feat chains are a bad design.

 

[Minigiant]

Really if the First World is the world that is the blueprint for all others, it really should be a generic but primeval/primordial setting.

A basic standard world with all the core concept deities and the material plane turn up to 11. Giants, Dragons, Dinos, Fey Royals.

Giant subclasses fit right into that.

Perfect excuse for "Your PC gets a bonus feat".

 

[dave2008]

Yea, not a fan of level-gated feats, or the potential for feat chains. I thought that was an improvement 5e made from previous editions, so I personally am unlikely to adopt that change in any future edition or revision.

Just a question as I skipped 3e, what is wrong with feat chains in your opinion? I personally like the idea, as long as it is only a portion of the feats. I think having a series of feats that reinforce a concept, if you want to, sounds awesome. Again, as long as there are feat options that are not gated like this.

 

[Parmandur]

Nope, still boo. Most campaigns I play in end (well) before 12th. So unless I'm playign a class with extra feats, it's two feats over the entire year long campaign. A single requirement means that every single ASI/feat I get for the entire campaign must be sunk into it.

No, with the slow rate of feats in 5e and the known-by-WotC-by-Survey campaign ending level, feat chains are a bad design.

Pretty sure these are meant to work with the free Feat at First Level and another bonus Feat at 4th rules. The Feats without a Level requirement scream "I'm part of a Primordials-critical Background."

 

[dave2008]

No, with the slow rate of feats in 5e and the known-by-WotC-by-Survey campaign ending level, feat chains are a bad design.

Why? I never played 3e and have no experience with feat chains. I don't see the downside if it is an option, but not every feat. I like the idea of a bunch of general feats, then a few feat chains that can reinforce a theme. I just don't see the issue with not having it as an option.

 

[Parmandur]

Just a question as I skipped 3e, what is wrong with feat chains in your opinion? I personally like the idea, as long as it is only a portion of the feats. I think having a series of feats that reinforce a concept, if you want to, sounds awesome. Again, as long as there are feat options that are not gated like this.

Yeah, pretty clear from that question that you didn't play 3E.

Feats in 3E were much smaller than 5E, like a single 5E Feat is already as meaty as a three Feat chain in 3E. And in 3E they branched, and there were trap options designed on purpose to reward optimized play. So to build a character required a lot of paperwork to properly plan out a complex Feat plan. Like filing taxes, real fun.

 

[Faolyn]

It isn't totally amazing, no, that's my point.

It's mediocre. It's not particularly special or clever to have a size M Brontothere or whatever (which is literally all a Primeval Druid can summon at lower levels - size M things). Yeah you too can have a slightly undersized saber-toothed tiger or a correctly scaled (i.e. smaller than the movie) velociraptor! Maybe you could have an oversized Eohippus? Woooo the excitement!

So PCs should be able to summon Large creatures--indefinitely--at 2nd level?

But honestly, since you're summoning a statblock and not a creature from the MM, I see no reason why you can't say that it can be Large at 2nd level and Huge at 10th. The only thing that will change will be its carrying capacity. Its damage and reach remain the same, and it's actually a bit of a downside because the larger a creature is, the more enemies can surround.

And a Huge Kobold being exciting to people is one of those things that makes me worry about D&D players a bit.

"Ohhhh a character is a different size from expected! Wow!!! MIND = BLOWN". I think I rolled my eyes so hard I just hurt myself. It was I admit funny like, the first time I saw that, in the early 1990s. It's 2022 people.

This makes no sense. It's fun to have a Small creature get enlarged to Huge. Not mind-blowing, but who's saying it is? Besides, most people will be playing this with a Medium race, simply because there's more Medium PCs races than Small ones. Is it somehow better to be excited at playing a Medium creature who can become Large? Or is it that nobody is allowed to enjoy this archetype?

 

[Faolyn]

I think forum users are overreaching on the First World angle. It's not set up in Fizban's as a Setting, but as a Platonic realm of Ideas that explains why different D&D worlds share so much in common.

This feels much more like Fizban's with giants, particularly given Wyatt's invovlement.

But would they produce a giants book? Giants already had a chapter in Volo's, after all, while dragons didn't. And this UA has dinosaurs and pleistocene megafauna as well.

Anyway, I could see them doing a primeval/neolithic/lost world-type setting, since that's something they really haven't done before, or at least not in a long while. Heck, it could be a rewrite of the Hollow World of Mystara, made to be as a location that could be inside the world of any other setting.

I personally would prefer something like that, if only because, as I said, they already gave giants text in Volo's and I would like something different.