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:

 

[Umbran]

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.

 

[kapars]

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?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

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]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.