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:

 

[James Gasik]

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.

Or it's a downside if you use it. Can't fit through a door or corridor, it's harder to avoid AoE's....well I guess it's an upside if you have an aura that emanates from your space?

Oh and you can carry more stuff around, right?

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, pretty clear from that question that you didn't play 3E.

Feats in 3E were much smaller than 5E, like a single 5E Feat is already as meaty as a three Feat chain in 3E. And in 3E they branched, and there were trap options designed on purpose to reward optimized play. So to build a character required a lot of paperwork to properly plan out a complex Feat plan. Like filing taxes, real fun.

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?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or it's a downside if you use it. Can't fit through a door or corridor, it's harder to avoid AoE's....well I guess it's an upside if you have an aura that emanates from your space?

Oh and you can carry more stuff around, right?

It is such a weird way to do this. Lie this class actually has budgeted extra damage... but it is not connected to the size change. If I were to write a size changing subclass, I would definitely link the extra damage directly to the size change. Also, the huge size probably is an overkill, and not needed, except perhaps as the capstone. If you can't really give the character the strength and power that should go with it, don't do it.

Also, elemental barbarian is a nice concept. Nothing against it. I just feel that putting size changing and elemental into same subclass, the elemental effects eat too much of the power budget, leaving the size seem underwhelming.

 

[dave2008]

They where overlong and overcomplicated, making the difference between hardcore min-maxers and casual players huge.

But so long as they are kept short and simple they are a good way to customise characters outside of the class structure. I prefer feats to multiclassing.

A leads to B leads to C is fine. The problem is when you need A + Z + W to get to B, where several of those feats are rubbish and only worth taking because they lead to an awesome one.

It also tended to produce a lot of "my character sucks right now, but when I get to level 20 I will be awesome".

OK, so it seems the issue was how they were created in 3e and less the concept of them. I too like the idea of feats or feat chains to customize characters over multiclassing.

 

[James Gasik]

It is such a weird way to do this. Lie this class actually has budgeted extra damage... but it is not connected to the size change. If I were to write a size changing subclass, I would definitely link the extra damage directly to the size change. Also, the huge size probably is an overkill, and not needed, except perhaps as the capstone. If you can't really give the character the strength and power that should go with it, don't do it.

Also, elemental barbarian is a nice concept. Nothing against it. I just feel that putting size changing and elemental into same subclass, the elemental effects eat too much of the power budget, leaving the size seem underwhelming.

Enlarge is part of the problem, since it has dedicated mechanics for size changing that are probably too good to just hand a class. It's worse when you realize that due to the "let's make things simpler!" approach to 5e, you can stack Enlarge with another size booster, which is another reason why they probably don't want to give being Large through some other means equal benefits.

 

[dave2008]

If in the length of a regular campaign (WotC and DnDBeyond both say they end around 10), an option that you can't get into unless you devote every regular ASI/feat to so allows no customization, no variation between characters that have it - it just bad design.

How is this different from the current allocation of feats? Whether a take unrelated feats, or feats that have a link, doesn't change the frequency of customization.

Also, I am not talking about only having feat chains, so they would be strictly an option for those who want them.

If we had four feats over the course of a campaign, say level 1 feats for everyone became a thing and getting an extra free feat at 4th like in the second revision of the Dragonlace UA - that's a different story. If you want X, you don't have to give up every scrap of feat & ASI customization to get it.

If you would be taking a feat anyway, and the feat is something you want, you are not giving up anything. You are simply gaining something. I mean what is the drawback of taking feats at 4th and 8th level that are related to each other versus taking feats at 4th and 8th level that have no relationship to each other.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

OK, so it seems the issue was how they were created in 3e and less the concept of them. I too like the idea of feats or feat chains to customize characters over multiclassing.

Yeah, I think 3rd edition/Pathfinder left some players traumatised about feats.

 

[James Gasik]

Leveled Feats and Feat chains not working well with a multiclass character isn't probably something WotC worries about- remember, even though it is a widely used rules variant, Multiclassing is an optional rule in 5e.

Now if that changes, then yes, I'd like to see ASI/Feat's based on character level, and not pretending to be a class feature, for 1.

If Feats stop being optional content, I'd like to see more of them than every 4 levels, but this doesn't, in of itself, make Feat chains bad- it just means you're making a choice. Do I want this more powerful feature at the cost of other Feats/ASI's I could be taking?

I mean, if you think about it, a lot of people consider Polearm Master and Sentinel to be Feat chain already!

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Those elemental touched feats look amazing for genasi!

 

[Minigiant]

. . . Are you not familiar with Eberron? Or Ravnica? Or Theros? Or Spelljammer?

I see absolutely no reason why a First World or Prehistoric Setting book would be a "Standard Ren-Medieval D&D Setting with Dinosaurs and more Giants".

Only Eberron has a major rules variant in Artificers because it requires it.

The rest "Standard Ren-Medieval D&D Setting" with a theme, Base Rules, and a maybe a Gifts rule.

It won't be a Bone and Wood Weapon and Armor variant like the poster @Crimson Longinus suggested.