D&D 5E If Runes are now linked to Giants, Giant language should use Giant Script

[Minigiant]

You seem to have skipped over this part in the post you quoted, from the UA:

“Though the tradition originated with the giant rune casters of old, runecraft magic has expanded to encompass countless languages and practitioners across different worlds.”

Doesn't this explicitly say that Giant Magic Runes are no longer needed for rune magic? Listen, I am fine with your approach, I just don't think it is the default assumption of the designers.

Not necessarily since you don't need to know Giant to do rune magic.

Based on that sentence, multiple cultures of rune carvers could be still using the Giant symbol for "Fire" for the fire rune but calling the rune "Fire" in their own language.

There are runes for the 6 giants in the Ordning but no runes for dwarven things like Axe, Forge or Good or elven things like Wood or Fey.

 

[dave2008]

Not necessarily since you don't need to know Giant to do rune magic.

Based on that sentence, multiple cultures of rune carvers could be still using the Giant symbol for "Fire" for the fire rune but calling the rune "Fire" in their own language.

There are runes for the 6 giants in the Ordning but no runes for dwarven things like Axe, Forge or Good or elven things like Wood or Fey.

I guess that is one way to look at it. But, IMO, that seems more like trying to force an interpretation based on your viewpoint rather than taking it for face value.

I just don't think the designers are being as specific about the relationship of Giant Runes to "current" rune / rune magic. The simple interpretation, IMO, is:

1. Giants created runes and runic magic
2. Other creatures adopted one or both
3. Other creatures adapted/expanded one or both
4. The adapted / expanded runes & runic magic may, or may not, look anything like giant runes and runic magic. It just depends on how much they have diverged from the origin.

 

[Minigiant]

I guess that is one way to look at it. But, IMO, that seems more like trying to force an interpretation based on your viewpoint rather than taking it for face value.

I just don't think the designers are being as specific about the relationship of Giant Runes to "current" rune / rune magic. The simple interpretation, IMO, is:

1. Giants created runes and runic magic
2. Other creatures adopted one or both
3. Other creatures adapted/expanded one or both
4. The adapted / expanded runes & runic magic may, or may not, look anything like giant runes and runic magic. It just depends on how much they have diverged from the origin.

My point is that the designers offered no mechanical or lore expansion and development of runes outside of giants.

The mechanics and lore are purely giant based. The designers offer no mechanics or lore for runes that are not giant based.

Regular old spellcasting has mentions of dragon magic, elven magic, devil magic, human magic. The 5e designers didn't do this for runes. It's just giants.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess that is one way to look at it. But, IMO, that seems more like trying to force an interpretation based on your viewpoint rather than taking it for face value.

I just don't think the designers are being as specific about the relationship of Giant Runes to "current" rune / rune magic. The simple interpretation, IMO, is:

1. Giants created runes and runic magic
2. Other creatures adopted one or both
3. Other creatures adapted/expanded one or both
4. The adapted / expanded runes & runic magic may, or may not, look anything like giant runes and runic magic. It just depends on how much they have diverged from the origin.

This.

There's even an elven god of runes and I doubt that there would be an elven god of giant runes.