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."


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:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
This has happened between her and I multiple times in the past. She hyper focuses on a few individual posts, rather than the context of the conversation and then argues tooth and nail that I am saying something other than what I am saying. 🤷

Mod note:
The amount of disrespect required to make it personal and talk about people like they aren't present is significant. It does not give folks confidence that the only problem in the conversation is them, and not you.

Next time, refrain from the disdainful potshot, hm? Thanks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kapars

Explorer
Could this be a case of options for different books combined into one UA? The Druid class in terms of the examples given really fits with the MTG Ikoria setting while the Giants and Runes fit with Kaldheim. Is there anything in the MTG lore of these worlds that could make these worlds collide in one setting book?
 

Could this be a case of options for different books combined into one UA? The Druid class in terms of the examples given really fits with the MTG Ikoria setting while the Giants and Runes fit with Kaldheim. Is there anything in the MTG lore of these worlds that could make these worlds collide in one setting book?
Certainly possible.
 

You may be right. WotC knows thanks UA we can speculate about future titles, and then to avoid excesive hype the option would be to mix elements from different books.

But I suspect the D&D sourcebooks about a line of Magic: the Gathering should be in the same year, but it was a enough known line, for example Ranivca. If there is a D&D Kaldheim, then a new set of this should be published in the same year.
 

JEB

Legend
This is a very long digression arguing about something for which there is no evidence. My personal experience leads me to believe that in 2022 the majority of players do not roll stats, but I have no evidence to support that so it's pointless arguing with the people who believe otherwise.
In order to get some (limited) evidence, I started a poll on the matter.
 

And around 50% of tables use rolling once you add in that percentage of Other that uses some form of rolling that is different from PHB Rolling. If this site skews against rolling like @Ruin Explorer says, then more than 50% of tables use rolling if we are any indication. ;)
No, this is a sad failure of math and logic on your part.

If we do that, then we end up with a lot of numbers that add up to like 200% of players lol.
 

If the 2024 revision retains rolling as the default, I guess that would say something.
I agree that it would. I'm genuinely interested to see what they do there. My expectation is that they present Fixed Array and Rolling equally, even Point Buy almost always wins polls on the web, because those two are the most immediate/accessible methods, whereas Point Buy requires the dreaded MATH. I suspect the largest number of groups use it, because most D&D players are, still, nerds, but it's not what I'd present as the default method.

I mean, realistically, yes. The entirety of even the DNDNext Subreddit is a sliver of the user base. D&D Beyond itself is only at best 20% of D&D players. The sampling is suspect, and the results are ambiguous to boot.
It could be as high as 33% actually. WotC quote the current user-base of Beyond at 10m, and the current player-base of 5E at 30m, most recent figures from them that I saw (I know they said 50m previously, I doubt this is a drop, it's probably a different estimation method).

But even at 20% or even 10%, it's a gigantic sample, probably a literal hundred times larger than the surveys you love so much, it's very unlikely it's unrepresentative. It's fanciful on your part as I said, to continue believing that it's "unrepresentative". You're like one of those partisan political pundits, who, no matter how many polls show their party is 15 points behind, insist they're going to win, because "polls can be wrong", and it's like, yeah, they can, but not usually by very much (in politics it tends to matter because so many races are close anyway, so if a poll is even 5% off it makes a huge difference).

I mean, 10% of 30m is 3m! That's a wild number. How many surveys you think they get filled in properly? 10k? 20k? 50k? I'd be interested to hear if you know, Google is unhelpful on this. I'm going with less than 50k responses typically. Quite possibly less than 10k. And yet that's been enough for WotC to make decisions on - a much more biased and self-selecting group, nerds on the internet only, D&D fans only, people with too much time on their hands only. These dweebs (of which I am one) were enough for WotC to make big decisions based on whether 70% of internet dweebs liked a thing. And 3m isn't enough for you? Kind of seems wildly self-contradictory.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No, this is a sad failure of math and logic on your part.

If we do that, then we end up with a lot of numbers that add up to like 200% of players lol.
As I've said a few times, it's about the number of tables, not the exact percentage of PCs. My math is good. Your assumption about what I'm talking about is apparently what is failing here.

The number of tables that use rolling on Reddit, this site and likely other sites, is around 50%. So if you are correct and these sites skew towards point buy and array, then significantly more than 50% of tables among general D&D players use rolling.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
But even at 20% or even 10%, it's a gigantic sample, probably a literal hundred times larger than the surveys you love so much, it's very unlikely it's unrepresentative. It's fanciful on your part as I said, to continue believing that it's "unrepresentative". You're like one of those partisan political pundits, who, no matter how many polls show their party is 15 points behind, insist they're going to win, because "polls can be wrong", and it's like, yeah, they can, but not usually by very much (in politics it tends to matter because so many races are close anyway, so if a poll is even 5% off it makes a huge difference).
A gigantic skewed and biased sample is a gigantic skewed and biased sample. It's still useless for figuring out what's what.
 

A gigantic skewed and biased sample is a gigantic skewed and biased sample. It's still useless for figuring out what's what.
Dear oh dear lol, you keep believing that, right, yeah if you don't like the numbers, it's skewed and biased. You and the partisan guy who insists the obviously losing candidate is going to win can high-five each other.
My math is good.
LOL no.

Your math gives us a total of about 200% of players.
So if you are correct and these sites skew towards point buy and array, then significantly more than 50% of tables among general D&D players use rolling.
This is what I was saying about "faulty logic". No, mate, that's literally not how it works.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Dear oh dear lol, you keep believing that, right, yeah if you don't like the numbers, it's skewed and biased. You and the partisan guy who insists the obviously losing candidate is going to win can high-five each other.
The primary use for D&D Beyond is to build PCs for online gaming. No matter how you want to spin things, that's what the PC building on D&D Beyond is focused on. Online gaming is necessarily skewed towards point buy and array, since the groups are often spread out over great distances and it's just easier to do it that way.
Your math gives us a total of about 200% of players.
No it doesn't. And there's nothing you can do to Strawman my math into a different calculation in order for you to be correct. No matter how much you want to twist what I'm saying so that you can call me wrong and laugh at me, I'm talking about tables and not individual PCs. My math results in about 50% of tables using rolling. Period.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
so please share the surveys or spy technic you used to get information on all the tables
So once again. A) I don't view D&D Beyond as a valid source, because it necessarily is skewed and biased towards point buy and array, or Reddit and this site as valid sourced, because they are also biased and skewed, B) Apparently @Ruin Explorer and @Faolyn do view these biased and invalid sources as valid, and C) Using the polls from Reddit and this site, with the standard margin of error we get around 50% of tables using the rolling method.

The arguments I am making about the numbers assumes their incorrect conclusions about these sites and D&D Beyond as being correct and are not my position on the matter. My position is that we don't know what the actual numbers are, because there's no valid data out there.
 

So once again. A) I don't view D&D Beyond as a valid source, because it necessarily is skewed and biased towards point buy and array, or Reddit and this site as valid sourced, because they are also biased and skewed, B) Apparently @Ruin Explorer and @Faolyn do view these biased and invalid sources as valid, and C) Using the polls from Reddit and this site, with the standard margin of error we get around 50% of tables using the rolling method.
useing online informal polls that people cna vote multi times and not everyone votes at best is an educated guess...
The arguments I am making about the numbers assumes their incorrect conclusions about these sites and D&D Beyond as being correct and are not my position on the matter. My position is that we don't know what the actual numbers are, because there's no valid data out there.
okay then we agree there is no way to know... and it's dumb to just take any one sites numbers
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
So once again. A) I don't view D&D Beyond as a valid source, because it necessarily is skewed and biased towards point buy and array, or Reddit and this site as valid sourced, because they are also biased and skewed, B) Apparently @Ruin Explorer and @Faolyn do view these biased and invalid sources as valid, and C) Using the polls from Reddit and this site, with the standard margin of error we get around 50% of tables using the rolling method.

The arguments I am making about the numbers assumes their incorrect conclusions about these sites and D&D Beyond as being correct and are not my position on the matter. My position is that we don't know what the actual numbers are, because there's no valid data out there.
I don't view it as a "valid source." (edit: whatever "valid" means in this context.) I do, however, find it funny that you are willing to use that poll on EN World as a valid source because you thought it supported your claim.

This has happened between her and I multiple times in the past. She hyper focuses on a few individual posts, rather than the context of the conversation and then argues tooth and nail that I am saying something other than what I am saying. 🤷
And here I'm going to point out that you, in the past, have shown unwilling to accept any info that contradicts your beliefs, even when numerous people show you evidence otherwise. A conversation comes to mind about whether or not certain deities who were once formerly demigods were still demigods, despite being able to cast spells in 5e...
 

The primary use for D&D Beyond is to build PCs for online gaming.
Nope.

You're clearly unfamiliar with DNDBeyond.

Until well into the pandemic, you couldn't even use it that way. And then it only worked for than because of a Discord bot (Avrae) and Chrome Extension (Beyond 20) which let it work with Roll20. You're really supporting my point by demonstrating ignorance this way.

As for a "valid source", you and @Parmandur (who at least has been honest about it) have both expressed the opinion that if you dislike a source's numbers, you will discount it. So I don't think Beyond is particularly valid, but it's about the best source of information we have. You literally don't understand what it is. You're doing the equivalent of talking about the 141 Bus as if it was a jet aeroplane.

Online gaming is necessarily skewed towards point buy and array, since the groups are often spread out over great distances and it's just easier to do it that way.
It's literally not an online gaming tool. It doesn't have a VTT - it's been developing one for a long time, but it has never appeared. You've very clearly never used it and are not familiar with it.

Yet you think you're qualified to make proclamations about it. Absolutely wild!

No it doesn't. And there's nothing you can do to Strawman my math into a different calculation in order for you to be correct. No matter how much you want to twist what I'm saying so that you can call me wrong and laugh at me, I'm talking about tables and not individual PCs. My math results in about 50% of tables using rolling. Period.
No-one has to strawman anything. The way you're adding numbers up, if you do it for all the numbers, you go way above 100%, quite close to 200%. Which shows it is a fantasy on your part. So yes, I am calling you wrong, on a really basic level. Your math is not math, it's just you making up numbers, because you apparently don't understand how percentages work (based on your repeated assertions which show a clear lack of understanding).
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Nope.

You're clearly unfamiliar with DNDBeyond.

Until well into the pandemic, you couldn't even use it that way. And then it only worked for than because of a Discord bot (Avrae) and Chrome Extension (Beyond 20) which let it work with Roll20. You're really supporting my point by demonstrating ignorance this way.

As for a "valid source", you and @Parmandur (who at least has been honest about it) have both expressed the opinion that if you dislike a source's numbers, you will discount it. So I don't think Beyond is particularly valid, but it's about the best source of information we have. You literally don't understand what it is. You're doing the equivalent of talking about the 141 Bus as if it was a jet aeroplane.


It's literally not an online gaming tool. It doesn't have a VTT - it's been developing one for a long time, but it has never appeared. You've very clearly never used it and are not familiar with it.
So since it doesn't have it's own, it's not commonly used with any VTT. Got it. I must be imagining my usage of it that way.
No-one has to strawman anything. The way you're adding numbers up, if you do it for all the numbers, you go way above 100%, quite close to 200%. Which shows it is a fantasy on your part. So yes, I am calling you wrong, on a really basic level. Your math is not math, it's just you making up numbers, because you apparently don't understand how percentages work (based on your repeated assertions which show a clear lack of understanding).
My math adds up to 100%. Around 50% of tables use rolling if we take the polls at face value and close to 50% don't. That's 100%. You don't get to switch what I'm adding into something else and then call me wrong. At least 4 times now. That's quite frankly, extreme bad faith arguing on your part. You understand what I'm adding and are deliberately altering that so that you can mock me.
 
Last edited:

So since it doesn't have it's own, it's not commonly used with any VTT. Got it. I must be imagining my usage of it that way.
It's not designed for online play, and doesn't have any features that make particularly good for that (unlike dozens of other products which do!). In fact it works best for in-person play with people using it as an app on their phone or tablet.

So yeah, you're demonstrably wrong, and stamping your foot and saying you use it for online play doesn't make it so.

And no, it's not "commonly used with any VTT". Indeed if you were using most VTTs, it would be perverse to involve DNDBeyond. Only Roll20, with the Beyond20 Chrome extension would make sense. That Chrome extension didn't become "a thing" until well into the pandemic, after DNDBeyond had existed for a very long time, and nothing about DNDBeyond is adapted to help Roll20. In fact, arguably they've done the opposite.
My math adds up to 100%. Around 50% of tables use rolling if we take the polls at face value and close to 50% don't. That's 100%. You don't get to switch what I'm adding into something else and then call me wrong. That's quite frankly, extreme bad faith arguing on your part.
It literally does not.

If you feel it does, re-link the poll you're specifically referring to so there can be no confusion, and then do the math publicly, rather than making handwaves.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If you feel it does, re-link the poll you're specifically referring to so there can be no confusion, and then do the math publicly, rather than making handwaves.
I've already linked them and your constant twisting of my math and mocking tone don't deserve me to go back and re-find them for you. They are not too many pages past if you really want to see them.
 

I've already linked them and your constant twisting of my math and mocking tone don't deserve me to go back and re-find them for you. They are not too many pages past if you really want to see them.
I did go back. You've linked and referred to a ton of posts, and going back I can't work out for sure which one the math if referring to. It appeared to be referring to the ENworld post, in which case my allegations are correct, but if it's not the ENworld one, then maybe you claim re: not adding up to over 100% is correct.
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top