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:

 

[dave2008]

Say a player wants an ASI or a different feat, and then wants the second feat in the chain.

They can't do that.

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. That is a specific implementation issue. One I don't have a problem with personally. It just makes sense in some circumstances.

Is it because it's too powerful? Then is the first one too weak to offset? Bad design.

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.

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.

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. So that feat 2 builds on feat 1, etc. Now, I don't think you necessarily need to say: you can't take feat 2 without taking feat 1 (though I think that can be appropriate as well). But I don't think that is bad design and in fact think it can be well designed. Why limit feats when we can have options the build on each other too.

Listen, I get how it could be an issue, but I think it needs to be.

Where is it good design to deny that customization to the character?

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

Where is it good design that to have a feat that will be unused unless a character devotes all regular ASI/feat customization opportunities to it.

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.)

Again, if there were more customizations it's not as bad. But with the current setup and expected length of campaign it takes those feat out of use except in rare conditions.

 

[Parmandur]

Unless they're bringing back all of 4e's Giant lore

Yes, I think you answered your own question here. Also tying together all of the Giant creature types

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".

I didn't say the First World is "fake," I said thst it is a Mythic presentation of the Platonic World of Ideas, AKA D&D Intellectual Property. Which is how it is depicted in Fizban's, not a physical location.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

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.

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.

The Forgotten Reapms Wiki is maybe not the best source for thinking about this
Giant relates creatures include Orcs, Trolls, Ogres, Ettinger, Titans, and the whole 4E elemental Primordial scene which these UA options are echoing. It's a lot easier than you seem to think.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Overall I like the Path of the Giant Barbarian, as I think that while it does occupy some of the same conceptual space as the Runeknight I think it actually plays easier, and is gated behind the Barbarian's Rage mechanic.

The Circle of the Primeval Druid makes me think they might be more open to summoning/companion Druids now that they figured out they can just take a Wildshape uses as the mechanic.

Runecrafter Wizard, is mostly good until the 14th level ability which has 1 weak effect out of the 3.

As for the feats, if they are free and don't take up ASIs then some of them are good. I think the level requirements on some can get moved around, like the Cloud Giant one.

Feats I feel should be something that adds to your options and isn't something you have to take to be "viable" or "competitive" like the * Focus feats of 3e. I'm fine that "feat chains" are thematic and with 3 at the most, that aren't something that could be a class or subclass ability like Whirlwind Attack or Great Cleave were.

 

[Parmandur]

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...

The Druid is 4E Primordial power source themed, which is one of the firmer pieces of evidence that Wyatt is being allowed to bring in the 4E Giant mythos to the First World paradigm (not setting, Mythic World of Ideas superstructure underlying a toolbox).

 

[Parmandur]

So two things I see from your response:

1. It is not an apples to apples comparison as feats are so different (between 3e & 5e)
2. It seems it is less the concept of feat chains than it was the implementation of them?

Yes, and yes, which is why they are seeing some success with this modest approach. The 3E implementation was a pain, but this...this is elegant.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, I just think that there are better ideas for monster books that focus on one creature type than Giants. Undead or Aberrations are way more obvious choices, IMO, and I think WotC would agree. The Druid has nothing to do with Giants or even Runes, the Wizard only has a slight lore-themed connection to Giants, and the Barbarian's theme screams "Dawn War with Elemental Giants" more than "Giantonomicon" to me.

The main reason to think that WotC thinks a Giant centered Monster book is a good ideas is that they just put out a slew of Giant related options, as theybdid with Fizban's. Druids in 4E were all, amd I emphasize all, Giant related through the Primal Power source, along with Barbarians, Shamans and Warden. And, hey, look...a "Primeval" version of Barbarians and Druids. This is Wyatt bringing his 4E lore back and weaving it into the new framework.

 

[Parmandur]

Have we considered the idea this is for some Tasha/Xanathar type book rather than a setting?;

Yes, it looks like Fizban's Giant material, mixing 4E and 2E mythology, from James Wyatt.

 

[Parmandur]

To answer you're question on whether anynedition had enough giants for a book, just look over the endless 2e giant types....

Beyond that, there's still plenty of thematic room for true giant variant stat blocks. I produced dozens on a thread on this very forum, and @Dragonix has dozens more in his MME series. At the very least you have the leaders like frost giant jarls and fire giant dukes out there as low-hanging fruit for new stat blocks.

And that's just true giants. There are plenty of giantkin out there for variants as well; verbeeg would get a move to an "official" monster book, and voadkyn could finally be updated to 5e. Heck, we could get some firbolg stat blocks in the manner of the tortle druid in MotM. And beyond that, they could definitely create further ogre and troll variants. And there are plenty of other edition giants and giant-type creatures that can still be updated, above and beyond the voadkyn I mentioned.

Beyond that, there are definitely enough giant-type creatures for a good, full lore section.

And in the end, if there truly aren't enough giant types, they could always do a 50/50 giant/elemental book, as some are suggesting...

Don't forget Orcs: theybare traditionally Giantkin, amd thisnwouodnoffer an opportunity to clean upn5E lore and give Orcs a different place in the cosmos.

 

[Bitbrain]

It's actually for the 5E adaptation of Rise of the Runelords.

/probably not

If nothing else, we’d at least get a 5e Rune Giant.

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.

A 5e remake of the Hollow World would be amazing.