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:

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That, let me assure you, is not true. Giants and Giantkin are more than enough for an equivalent book, especially with more Primordial material.

Are you sure? Because 5e Giants have never had a "Primordial" connection, and, looking through the Forgotten Realm's Wiki for Giants from previous editions of D&D, there's really not that much. Especially when you take into account how much they would have to reprint in order to get the book to be big enough (the Ogre, Troll, and True Giant variants from Monsters of the Multiverse, probably some stuff from Storm King's Thunder, Verbeeg and Ice Troll from Rime of the Frostmaiden, the lore from Volo's, etc).

Like, seriously, what are they going to put in the book? Fizban's had a bunch of obvious stuff that they could put in it, like Gem Dragons, Great Wyrms, Bahamut/Tiamat, and ages for the different Dragon Turtles. Giants don't have different stat blocks for their age categories or major parts of them that have been left out from this edition so far. We already have the lore for the Ordning, the Giant Gods, functioning stats for Giantkin races (Goliaths, Firbolg), and quite a few Giant stat blocks. Unless they're bringing back all of 4e's Giant lore and making Elemental Titanic versions of the standard giants . . . I really don't see how they would do a Fizban's-style Giant-focused Monster Book.

Yeah, he wrote a poem and a two page explanation of how it is an obscure metaphors, maybe, who can say? It's not a Setting, it's a Mythic background concept.

But they also said that it serves as a meta-explanation for why so many creatures are shared between the Multiverse of D&D. There's clearly more going on to the story than "oh, actually, all of that is fake".

The several pages of Rune magic.

. . . I'm looking at my copy right now. There really aren't. There are some Runic Magic Items, but not "several pages of Rune Magic". And people don't generally consider Magic Items to be "player options" (that's why they're in the DMG and not the PHB).

Dinosaurs are part of the Primordial set of creatures related to the Elements.

Are they? I cannot find anything in all of 5e's sections on Dinosaurs that connects them to Primordials. Heck, I've never even seen "Primordials" be mentioned in any D&D product as a monster type. It's sometimes used as descriptor text like "Primeval", but never as a keyword, like "Titan" is.

I see no reason to suspect that the "First World" is going to be or was ever intended to be taken as a Setting, but as a Mythic framework. This material all feels much more like a Primordial/Titan/Giant answer to Fizban's. And this is a way theybcan extebd that Multiverse theme, too, right from Fizban's to Spelljammer to this to Planescape.

We'll see. Maybe Spelljammer will talk more about the First World, because, presumably, the First World's destruction is what created all of the planets that you can visit through the Spelljammer setting.

 

[JEB]

Not going to happen. They will issue a clarification that the DMG large weapons rules apply only to monsters.

I agree that if Wizards does intend to open the door to Large PCs, this is how they'd do it. What's one more inconsistency between PC and monster versions of races?

That said, it seems most likely that Wizards will just leave Large characters gated behind PC options like the ones in this UA, and leave out or restrict the options that also give them Large weapon usage (as they have). They've had eight years to work out a way for Large PCs to work more broadly, and clearly aren't interested in doing so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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!

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.

Mod Note:

Can we dial the sarcasm back a notch, please?

 

[JEB]

Unless they're bringing back all of 4e's Giant lore and making Elemental Titanic versions of the standard giants . . .

That would be a start, yes. Like the Greatwyrms in Fizban's, they could take things up a notch.

I really don't see how they would do a Fizban's-style Giant-focused Monster Book.

The 2E Draconomicon was in the same sourcebook line as another book, Giantcraft... which focused on giant lore. It's been done before.

Also like dragons, there are plenty of other giants from old editions they could dust off as new options, such as death giants, desert giants, reef giants, or voadkyn. They could also revise the fog giant from the Mordenkainen's Fiendish Folio PDF (and maybe declare that book Legacy Content while they're at it, as they did EEPC).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That would be a start, yes. Like the Greatwyrms in Fizban's, they could take things up a notch.

By my count, there are about 70 monster stat blocks in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.

If there were a Giant-focused monster book similar to Fizban's and it reprinted literally all of the non-M:tG variant Giants/Giantkin that would be:

• 6 True Giant stat blocks (Hill Giant Mouth of Grolantor, Frost Giant Everlasting One, Fire Giant Dreadnought, etc)
• 4 Ogres of War
• 5 Mutated Trolls
• 2 Verbeeg

That's just 17 additional monsters. The bestiary would need over 50 more giant-themed monsters in order to just match how many dragon-themed ones are in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.

Is that really possible given the history of D&D? Have there ever been that many Giant-related monsters in one edition before? Even if the book were to bring back Titans as bigger versions of the True Giants, that doesn't get them anywhere near the amount required to get close to Fizban's.

I'll admit that Fizban's bestiary isn't just Giants, it includes some humanoids that worship Bahamut, Tiamat, and Sardior, and also stuff like Hoard Scarabs/Mimics. Maybe this book kind of book could include undead Giants (like the Frost Giant Zombie from Wildemount)? And some Annam worshipping priests or Giant-touched NPC stats. But, still, I think that Fizban's had way more to work with than a purely Giant-focused monster book.

The Player Option section could easily be the size of Fizban's, as could the Magic Item and Spells section, but the rest would be stretching it.

The 2E Draconomicon was in the same sourcebook line as another book, Giantcraft... which focused on giant lore. It's been done before.

But D&D has had at least one Draconomicon in basically every edition, right? Giantcraft was just one book from one edition. About half the size of the typical D&D 5e book. And Giants haven't gotten a ton of additions through the editions on them like Dragons have.

Also like dragons, there are plenty of other giants from old editions they could dust off as new options, such as death giants, desert giants, reef giants, or voadkyn. They could also revise the fog giant from the Mordenkainen's Fiendish Folio PDF (and maybe declare that book Legacy Content while they're at it, as they did EEPC).

Going off of the Forgotten Realms Wiki . . . there really aren't that many. Especially not when compared to Dragons. Seriously, go to the bottom of both of those articles and look at the section that compiles all Giantkin and Dragonkind into one spot. In my opinion, there are too many dragons from the history of D&D to even fit them all in a 5e book. Giants have the opposite problem. There's just over 30 of them from the history of D&D.

Hey, maybe they could squeeze another Fizban's-style monster book out of them. It would require reprinting a lot of monster stat blocks and lore (which would probably make people angry), but they might be able to do it. I just think that, given how few Giants there have been in D&D's history, it's not a good idea. If there were another Fizban's-style monster book coming out anytime soon, I imagine it would be for Aberrations or Undead before Giants. There's a lot they could do with those creature types in a book of that format. However, I don't think Giants would work as well, and I think WotC would recognize that too. And the fact that the Druid isn't Giant-themed at all and is "Prehistoric"-themed makes me think that WotC are misdirecting us once again (as they did with the Folk of the Feywild and Centaur/Minotaur UA) and we're getting a Prehistoric campaign setting as the next completely new D&D setting that we were told were being made awhile back.

 

[darjr]

You missed one. A rodent one.

 

[JEB]

By my count, there are about 70 monster stat blocks in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.

If there were a Giant-focused monster book similar to Fizban's and it reprinted literally all of the non-M:tG variant Giants/Giantkin that would be:

• 6 True Giant stat blocks (Hill Giant Mouth of Grolantor, Frost Giant Everlasting One, Fire Giant Dreadnought, etc)
• 4 Ogres of War
• 5 Mutated Trolls
• 2 Verbeeg

That's just 17 additional monsters. The bestiary would need over 50 more giant-themed monsters in order to just match how many dragon-themed ones are in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.

Is that really possible given the history of D&D? Have there ever been that many Giant-related monsters in one edition before? Even if the book were to bring back Titans as bigger versions of the True Giants, that doesn't get them anywhere near the amount required to get close to Fizban's.

I can see a number of ways to expand that count:
1. Troll variants and ogre variants (and possibly other creatures of the giant type, like oni).
2. More variants of core giants, like we got for duergar, drow, etc. in MOTM.
3. Giants from settings other than the Realms, reframed in a multiversal way: Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Eberron have assorted unique giants and giant-kin, for example.

I'll admit that Fizban's bestiary isn't just Giants, it includes some humanoids that worship Bahamut, Tiamat, and Sardior, and also stuff like Hoard Scarabs/Mimics. Maybe this book kind of book could include undead Giants (like the Frost Giant Zombie from Wildemount)? And some Annam worshipping priests or Giant-touched NPC stats.

4. And that.

Also keep in mind that if they dedicate as much room to the core giant lore generally as they did dragons in Fizban's, they could also dedicate additional special space to troll and ogre lore, which has yet to get any special attention in 5E. So they could cut back the bestiary in favor of more tabular lore options and such.

Hey, maybe they could squeeze another Fizban's-style monster book out of them. It would require reprinting a lot of monster stat blocks and lore (which would probably make people angry), but they might be able to do it.

I doubt they'd just cut-and-paste the Volo's giant lore into the book, I'm sure they'd have a multiversal revision in mind. (You would upset some folks who liked the VGTM giant lore, but I don't think they care much about that anymore.) And if some of the reprinted monsters weren't in MOTM, there are also folks who'd appreciate the post-Tasha's update.

If there were another Fizban's-style monster book coming out anytime soon, I imagine it would be for Aberrations or Undead before Giants.

I certainly wouldn't complain about that; we are overdue for an undead-centric book for sure (unless they counted Van Richten's?). But this UA is the only monster-centric clue we've had, so...

And the fact that the Druid isn't Giant-themed at all and is "Prehistoric"-themed makes me think that WotC are misdirecting us once again (as they did with the Folk of the Feywild and Centaur/Minotaur UA) and we're getting a Prehistoric campaign setting as the next completely new D&D setting that we were told were being made awhile back.

Or they're just mashing together playtest options from different upcoming books, like they did last year, and we're going to get a giant-centric book and a prehistoric setting book...

 

[Azuresun]

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.

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.

You really seem to hate D&D. I mean, seriously hate, despise and loathe it. Like, this is passionate. Spending so much time talking about something you have nothing but rabid hate and contempt for might not be good for your mental well-beiung.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not going to happen. They will issue a clarification that the DMG large weapons rules apply only to monsters.

Probably. And this sort of disconnect is my biggest issue with these. You can become a giant sized barbarian, but somehow your strength doesn't change and your weapons don't do the same damage than weapons of actual giants even though they're the same size. Or you can have a huge pet dinosaur... with strength 15 and one attack which it remembers to do only if you command it every turn. Hell, the barbarian can just forgo the size change if there is no room, and still somehow gains all the benefits, including the increased reach! What's even happening? I don't know, these feel unsatisfying to me, the size seems mostly cosmetic.

 

[James Gasik]

You really seem to hate D&D. I mean, seriously hate, despise and loathe it. Like, this is passionate. Spending so much time talking about something you have nothing but rabid hate and contempt for might not be good for your mental well-beiung.

It's not that Micah hates D&D, but they aren't very happy with decisions WotC are making with the product- it's becoming less a game they want to play, and moving towards becoming something else, and there isn't much they can do about it other than be the voice of one crying out in the wilderness.

I mean, here are your options when it comes to any ttrpg. If you like it, you play it. If an option comes out that you don't like, you have to not use it in your games and put up with it in others.

If there is a significant design shift, such as moving away from short rests, that you don't like, it's much the same way- ignore it in your games and put up with it in others.

This can eventually lead to a scenario where new content isn't worth very much to you since you'd need to adapt it to fit your game, and it might be based on a new design premise you don't care for.

At a certain point, you've become some sort of D&D Luddite that has been left behind by the new game, and the only new content that exists for you is what you make on your own. And when you mention this, people dismiss you, say you're a hater, or worse, tell you to go play some other game.

Not a great feeling. And take heed! As the game evolves and changes, this could happen to you!