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

dave2008 said:

They may be how they were implemented in 3e (or even so far in 5e) but that isn't a requirement of the concept IMO.

Click to expand...

That you need to take the earlier feat in the chain before the later one absolutely is a requirement in this UA and the previous Dragonlance one. Sorry, this is wrong. It is the entire purpose of a requisite feat. I'm not really sure how someone could be so wrong on this that they felt comfortable enough to try to correct someone else.

dave2008 said:

Again, not an issue of concept but the implementation. My general assumption is that all feats should be balanced, but that is not always the case whether or not they are in feat chains.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is an issue of concept. If you have a feat that is too weak on purpose, it's a trap. Because that puts you weaker than eveyone else, with the only option to catch up is four levels later to lock you into a single choice, or take a normally balanced option and remain behind. 3.x has shown that feats like that are a bad design choice.

dave2008 said:

I strongly disagree. I would like to see a certain segment of feats, not all or even most of them, that lean into a theme.

Click to expand...

Just to understand, you feel like the designers should be the ones to enforce theme, across all settings including homebrew, by locking off choice by rules, as opposed to the people playing at the table having the freedom to pick what is right for their character? (Without having to have the DM house rule to overrule the designers.)

That's a position. Definitely a position to take. Yup.

dave2008 said:

I don't think feats chains have to deny, but instead could expand customization.

Click to expand...

They literally deny taking that feat except in certain cercumstances. Please keep your arguments to what is being presented in the UAs.

dave2008 said:

That being said, limiting customization can be could design. I know the restriction of site, zoning, HPO, and building code helped make my house better when I designed it.

Click to expand...

Yes, limitations can spur creativity. To say that it creates more creativity by denying customization is not really a supportable statement though. Take the old Henry Ford quote: "A customer can have a car painted in any color, as long as it is black". That puts limitations on, but does not increase customization as delivered from the factory. And while you could repaint the car later, if the rules prevent you from taking the feat without the prerequisite, you just can't take the feat - it is blocked. This is basically hyperbole.

dave2008 said:

I don't understand this one. Why would it be unused and why would you have to devote all customization to it (excluding subclass and background etc.)

Click to expand...

Normal play generally ends before 12th. Both WotC surveys and DnDBeyond information gathering have said that. With standard progress (no special race/class extra), that's two feats - one at 4th and one at 8th. If you want to get the second feat, and you need the first feat - that's two feats. If you only get two feats and need two feats, that's all of your ASI/feat customization.

Minigiant said:

I predict the majority of Primeval Companions created will be regular Normal beasts. Id be shocked... SHOCKED.. if over 30% of Primeval druids roleplay the prehistory and actually use dinos, mammoths, and saber toothed cats/dogs if the DM doesn't do a Prehistoric setting.

Click to expand...

I expect that players who want a dino but the dm shuts them down because it's too gonzo for the dm's world will outnumber players who actually play druids with dinos.

jmartkdr2 said:

I expect that players who want a dino but the dm shuts them down because it's too gonzo for the dm's world will outnumber players who actually play druids with dinos.

Click to expand...

why cant i summon a Mammoth Graveyard?

Players: Wow this is pretty neat. It just seems weird that the Path of the Giant Barbarian has these large looking pcs just using awkward looking medium/small versions of weapons. What's up with that?

Jeremy Crawford: Remember: It's not the size of the sword that matters, but how you use it! camera pans super up close to his face as he smiles, teeth sparkle shine happens

Player: I...feel like that's an analogy for something completely else, unrelated to the question.

Jeremey Crawford face screen is frozen as loading icon continues to circle about

Ruin Explorer said:

Yes?
Good point, well-made, exactly.

What you're illustrating to me is WotC's needless and irrational design conservatism, which sadly continues to rear its unattractive head. But inconsistently, because it's not always a thing.

Click to expand...

I have a sneaking suspicion that if the creature was Large to begin with, everyone would be talking about how OP it was and how it was an example of power creep.

What would you have had them do, then?

Ruin Explorer said:

It's not, imho.

It's a cliche of a particularly unexciting kind. To me anyway. It's trite - dictionary-definition trite - "dull on account of overuse". I mean, every time a power comes up that can make a PC larger, people are saying "Oh I could use it on a really small PC and make them really big", and to me, that is just a really boring and repetitive cliche/trope. I do get that it is funny the first time it happens, but I think it tends to be something that gets very old very fast. YMMV and all that.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm sorry that I'm not as cool and disaffected as you are. I personally haven't seen many effects that automatically make a creature a specific size regardless of what size they were to begin with. Mostly, these effects just make the creature one size larger.

doctorbadwolf said:

No, it expands on rules from the core books to do that. And does so very well.

Click to expand...

It does. Buts it's still Ren-Medieval with Greco Mythic paint over it. The fighting, skills, and magic of the theme aren't elevated as the prominent styles of the setting vis mechanics.

I'm just a "if you are gonna do it, do it hard" guy

That's why to me, if I am going to do Giants, I'd make Super Strength rules and full on Rune rules.

Ruin Explorer said:

I mean, if you factor in opportunity cost and the very small number of Feats people get in 5E, this is roughly equivalent to it being a 4-5 Feat chain in 3E/4E.

Click to expand...

Not really. They are introducing background bonus feats(two of them), and since you can create your own background, I'm certain you will be able to put into place the bonus feat of choice into a created background.

In 3e you got 7 feats over 20 levels. In 5e you get 5 feats over 20 levels, with 2 soon to be bonus feats for background, for a total of 7 feats over 20 levels. If you decide to turn some of those into ASIs, that's your choice. Regardless, though, a 2 feat chain isn't going to be the equivalent(roughly or not) of a 4-5 feat 3e chain. Even without the 2 bonus background feats, it would be roughly equal to 3 feat chain in 3e, since 5 feats in 5e vs. 7 in 3e is pretty darn close.

Urriak Uruk said:

I don't really know why Discworld matters here, never said the world should be on the back of four elephants standing on a turtle.

Click to expand...

I have no idea, but now I suddenly want an Octarine Dragon.

I will say, I do think there are technically enough potential giant statblocks to make a Fizban's-style giant book. There are a lot of giants from previous editions, and looking at books like Monster Manual Expanded, there are a lot of different potential variants for giants. And I do think a giant-book overall is possible... but I don't think it could be as good as a Fizban's book.

Chapter 1: Character Creation
Race reprints can go here, like Goliath (obviously), Firbolg (I guess), and maybe a new one like half-giant (really should be Dark Sun, but Thri-keen are already out so whatev).
The subclasses go here. The Primevel Circle really doesn't fit Giants unless we explicitly tie Dawn War/First World lore to giants... and I think if that's happening, a First World-specific book is way more likely than a giants book. But I digress.
Feats go here too.

Chapter 2: Dragon Magic (Giant Magic?)
This chapter doesn't really work. Yes you can make some giant spells, and giant magic items. But the overall theme of this doesn't really fit giants, kind of needs to be rewritten.

Chapter 3: Dragons in Play
Format of this chapter can fit giants just fine, no real problems here.

Chapter 4: Lairs and Hoards
Parts of this work, parts of it don't for giants. This needs a good amount of revision to make the format work for giants, as they aren't as tied to "hoards" and instead run little fortresses full of their kin.

Chapter 5: Draconomicon (Giganticon?)
This one would be a mess for giants. There are 20 dragon types here, and we've got only five "major" giant types. Yes they could add a few more to buff this out, but are there 15 more giant types to match the quality of the major 5? We also need new giant lair maps, but this is material that Storm King's Thunder extensively covers already. Yes it could be reprinted, or original maps made, but it's this sort of retreading I doubt James Wyatt is interested in doing. This chapter is entirely difficult to recreate for giants, I'd expect a completely different format.

Chapter 6: Bestiary
Like I said before, there's probably enough material to make an entire bestiary of just giants (or giant-adjacent) monsters. Will it be good, or just a bunch of "another giant, but with fog or death in front of it"? I'm doubtful. Part of the reason the Fizban's bestiary works is it has to make so many age-variants of dragons, so it doesn't feel as cluttered. Giants don't have that so need more to buff it out.

To conclude, yes I think a giant book is possible. But I do feel that compared to dragons, this is like spreading a little butter over too much bread. It's possible, but it's not going to hold up as well as a dragon sourcebook. Dragons just have far more material across editions, and that's the major reason why a "Draconomicon" has been made for different editions. AFAIK, giant books only are made in the context of big adventures, not as a sourcebook on their own. Even Volo's Guide to Monsters felt the need to share page count of giants with orcs, goblinoids, and beholders (and others).