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

I don't mind Feat chains as long as it doesn't end up like 3E/3,5 where if I choose "one" feat that isn't the pro pick choice or optimization-omega, then my PC can't even buy groceries or even walk right to swing a sword.

dave2008 said:

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.

Click to expand...

In 3e/3.5, feat chains lead to 2 issues as I remember them. First, the large number of feat chains lead to "trap" choices. Basically, unless you were very adept at character creation and planning your next choices ahead of time, you ended up with a sub-optimal build. And in 3e/3.5, the difference in performance between an optimal and sub-optimal build could be significant. 5e does a good job of reducing the gap in effectiveness between optimal and sub-optimal builds, and I think that's in part due to feats being optional, and when feats are in play having them each be of relatively equal power to one another. This also had the negative effect of increasing the learning curve for new players, increasing complexity of the game, and thus making it more difficult for new players to jump in and enjoy the game.

The other thing was that in 3e/3.5, the feat pre-requisites weren't always very useful. I suppose if it was just level-gated it may not be as bad. But in previous editions, you'd need other feats in order to qualify for the more advanced feats, and they weren't always that great.

Faolyn said:

Well, there are lots of "giant-kin," like cyclops, ettins, formorians, ogres. There were also (in 2e) giants like fog giants (reprinted in the Extra Life Fiend Folio; boy I wish they'd do another), crag giants, jungle giants, a couple of types of desert giants (for Dark Sun and for Al Qidam), mountain giants, and other giant-kin like athachs and voadkyn... there are probably as many different types of giants as there are elves.

The next question, of course, is if these type of giants are needed. In the Extra Life pdf, they made fog giants into cursed cloud giants who lost their place in the ordening. They could probably do something like that with some of these other giants, if they felt like it. Personally, I don't think that any more true giants are needed, although I wouldn't mind the athachs. I have a soft spot for the smaller, more deformed giant-types.

Click to expand...

True, I think some of the giants could probably "graduate" into getting as much lair material as the big 5. Fomorians and cyclopes chief among them (the latter could do with something to make them unique). And I'll admit there are lots of other giants not explored, but at a certain point what is the difference between a mountain giant and a stone giant? A lot of these feel redundant, and the 5E team avoided a lot of redundancy in Fizban's. I remember folks ripping each other to shreds on how the book skipped steel and song dragons.

Faolyn said:

The next question, of course, is if these type of giants are needed. In the Extra Life pdf, they made fog giants into cursed cloud giants who lost their place in the ordening. They could probably do something like that with some of these other giants, if they felt like it. Personally, I don't think that any more true giants are needed, although I wouldn't mind the athachs. I have a soft spot for the smaller, more deformed giant-types.

Click to expand...

They'd have to do something interesting with them. There are too many big fat strong HP sponges as is.

Like my 6K setting has giant pro wrestlers. Because only beings with super strength can too wrestling moves unassisted and unaided.


Almost TPKed the party with the Ogre Luchador and Hardcore Ettin tag team supported by Troll Jobbers.

dave2008 said:

I wasn't trying to correct you as I wasn't making a comment about current or past implementations. I was talking about the concept . I was very clear, not sure how you missed that.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you weren't as clear as you thought.

dave2008 said:

I simply don't understand how you fail to see that is bad implementation, not design. A feat chain does not require any of its feats to be stronger or weaker than any other feats.

Click to expand...

This particular part you were replying to the comment about the second feat being stronger and the first being weaker. So, since that is explicitly what you quoted and I responded to, that's what this part is talking about that. Please keep up with your own arguments - if they aren't strong enough to stick with you, they defitely aren't strong enough to stick with anyone else.

dave2008 said:

IF that happens it is poor implementation of the feat chain concept or simply a poorly designed feat. It doesn't mean feat chains are bad design. I skipped 3e, so referencing 3e is of no use to me.

Click to expand...

It's a public forum, others will see this as well. Ignorance that a design patterns was tried and considered a failure doesn't make it less true.

dave2008 said:

No, that is definitely not what I intended and I really don't see why one would jump to this conclusion based on what I wrote.

Click to expand...

That's why I clarified. Since you have demonstrated that you aren't keeping up with your own points, this is about your "strong disagree" to my point about "Is it appropriately powerful but someone else is saying that I shouldn't have an appropriate feat because they don't think it's thematic? Bad design."

dave2008 said:

But we all have our baggage I guess. I will try to be more clear:

• I think 5e should have unencumbered feats (feats with no prerequisites, links, or "chains")
  • These should be the majority of feats.
• I think linked feats that enforce a theme could be interesting.
  • I do not think this should be all or even a majority of feats.
  • I think this could be an interesting way to add some mechanical heft to setting elements.
  • I think these could be a method to get a flavor of multiclassing without actually multiclassing.
  • I think you can create these without invalidating other options and player creativity.
• I do not think having a few feat chains in setting books or even few in the PHB is the designers controlling all themes in all settings in all games.
  • The feat chains are optional. You still have normal feats and ASI as an option.
  • You have every option you have now, + a few feat chain options.

Click to expand...

So, looking at what we were discussing, it looks like you are abandoning your "strongly disagree" to a more moderate position, and bringing in other aspects such as multiclassing that aren't represented in any of the feat chains in the UA Giants or UA Dragonlance so are pure conjecture.

dave2008 said:

I was never arguing what was in the UA.

Click to expand...

So I am having a discussion with others about the UA, you step in and disagree with points I made explicitly about the UAs, and now you are trying to walk it back and say that you aren't talking about the UA? Even though that was the conversation you inserted yourself into? The context of it all? In a thread about the UA?

If you weren't talking about the UA, the good faith discussion could have been to start a new thread. Or at least not quote someone who was discussing the UA so it seems you were continuing that discussion.

Hawk Diesel said:

In 3e/3.5, feat chains lead to 2 issues as I remember them. First, the large number of feat chains lead to "trap" choices. Basically, unless you were very adept at character creation and planning your next choices ahead of time, you ended up with a sub-optimal build. And in 3e/3.5, the difference in performance between an optimal and sub-optimal build could be significant. 5e does a good job of reducing the gap in effectiveness between optimal and sub-optimal builds, and I think that's in part due to feats being optional, and when feats are in play having them each be of relatively equal power to one another. This also had the negative effect of increasing the learning curve for new players, increasing complexity of the game, and thus making it more difficult for new players to jump in and enjoy the game.

The other thing was that in 3e/3.5, the feat pre-requisites weren't always very useful. I suppose if it was just level-gated it may not be as bad. But in previous editions, you'd need other feats in order to qualify for the more advanced feats, and they weren't always that great.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. Seems like a lot of the issue is 3e feat PTSD. I think we could do a better job now.

Blue said:

Perhaps you weren't as clear as you thought.

Click to expand...

Clearly, but you responded to this quote:

"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."

Blue said:

This particular part you were replying to the comment about the second feat being stronger and the first being weaker. So, since that is explicitly what you quoted and I responded to, that's what this part is talking about that. Please keep up with your own arguments - if they aren't strong enough to stick with you, they defitely aren't strong enough to stick with anyone else.

Click to expand...

Man, I don't now what your issue it, but I am going to caulk it up to the digital interface. I got to believe this could be a more reasonable conversation in person.

Blue said:

It's a public forum, others will see this as well. Ignorance that a design patterns was tried and considered a failure doesn't make it less true.

Click to expand...

OK, I almost deleted that sentence. I guess I should have.

Blue said:

That's why I clarified. Since you have demonstrated that you aren't keeping up with your own points, this is about your "strong disagree" to my point about "Is it appropriately powerful but someone else is saying that I shouldn't have an appropriate feat because they don't think it's thematic? Bad design."

Click to expand...

Man, I don't now what your issue it, but I am going to caulk it up to the digital interface. I got to believe this could be a more reasonable conversation in person.

Blue said:

So, looking at what we were discussing, it looks like you are abandoning your "strongly disagree" to a more moderate position, and bringing in other aspects such as multiclassing that aren't represented in any of the feat chains in the UA Giants or UA Dragonlance so are pure conjecture.

Click to expand...

I still strongly disagree, but feel free to think what you want. Like I already said, I wasn't talking about the proposed implementation in UA or 3e. Again, I am going to caulk it up to the digital interface. I got to believe this could be a more reasonable conversation in person.

Blue said:

So I am having a discussion with others about the UA, you step in and disagree with points I made explicitly about the UAs, and now you are trying to walk it back and say that you aren't talking about the UA? Even though that was the conversation you inserted yourself into? The context of it all? In a thread about the UA?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it was another post, but this started when I asked (in two separate posts) what is the issue with feat chains. I clarified that I had skipped 3e so I was curious about clarification of the issues. I didn't specifically mentioned the UA, just generally feat chains. Now, I think the issue may that I quoted you and this is a thorn in your side. I have received much more direct, responsive, and respectful response from other posters.

At this point I understand I asked the wrong person and move on.

Personally, I don't think feat chains could be designed in a way that avoids the pitfalls experienced in 3e/3.5. If the feats require a chain, it usually indicates that the feats higher in the chain are going to be more powerful. While I suppose it is possible to avoid this, I don't see that happening. If all feats are relatively within the range of power of one another, why couldn't you just choose which aspect of the feat chain you want a la cart? Unless there is a power curve, why lock feats into a particular chain? Thematic reasons, while on their face seem to make sense, there's no reason that themes could be reskinned to no longer require the original thematic ties.

Level gating could make more sense. More powerful feats can be accessed at higher levels. At first it seems like it could work. But then you force players to take non-level gated feats early on. As a player levels up, they become less likely to pick up feats of a lower level, because it would mean missing out on more powerful options. It could also lead to lower level feats becoming redundant, and once more creating "trap" options.

Overall, I really like the way feats in 5e were designed and presented. It solved a lot of problems from previous editions. Unless there is some new design elements or advances that can address those previous issues (I'd say on par with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic), feat chains and level gated feats should probably stay in the past. They created too many problems.

dave2008 said:

Thank you for the clarification. Seems like a lot of the issue is 3e feat PTSD. I think we could do a better job now.

Click to expand...

It actually it's really 3e PTSD and more the nature of feats and how WOTC sets them up.

Basically because of the way WOTC set up the 4 types of PCs (Warriors, Experts, Priests, and Mages) and the base rules, feat chains/trees interact with the 4 types differently if you don't purposely make sure they dont. And WOTC didn't.

Warriors gain so much power and utility wise from feat chains.
Experts mostly gain utility from feat chains but said utility is less desirable in large doses (aka Experts don't get much)
Priests get a lot of power from feat chains and might break if they focus too hard.
Mages gain utility from feat chains but said utility is as powerful as the table's situation allows.

For example the Rune Carver tree would give a warrior access to spells that break restrictions (feather fall) or multiply base actions (jump, longstrider) which is amazing. Valor of the Hill Giants say, nope I didn't get pushed. For an expert, it's nice but that's really not their game anyway.The priests and mages already get many of the spells and don't interact with the base rules as much as is (priest more so than wizards). So for them, it's more of a case of how important is spell versatility at their table or what rules do those feats multiply or unrestrict,

Since WOTC isn't getting into the nitty gritty,they are more or less lowballing the feats and hoping it is enough that the inherrent differences of the PC types don't sway much.

Veltharis ap Rylix said:

I mean, yes, but only as much as it is also tied to the Astral. The Material plane is where the Elemental and the Astral overlap. My 4e lore is admittedly rusty, but the point of Primal entities and power sources was to give the "natural world" defenders distinct from the Gods of the Astral or the Primordials of the Elemental.

The imagery of giants riding/herding mammoths and the like is solid, but outside of "being big" and possibly "living relics of an ancient time", I don't see much of the kind of thematic connection between giants and dinosaurs or other megafauna that you seem to be implying, especially from a 4e "giants as elementals" perspective.

Click to expand...

I think you will find that there wasn't a distinction of natural and Elemental in the 4E lore: the Druids, Barbarians, Wardens, and Shamans were tied to the Elemental forces, which included Giants and "Primeval" beings.