I'm, and I don't think I'm the only one, not really seeing a SKT sequel anymore than Fizban was a sequel to Tyranny of Dragons. I'm picturing a relatively setting agnostic "multiverse" take on Giants, perhaps tied to the Elemental Planes, or perhaps the Elemental connection is explained loosely and instead more focus is built around creative Giant personalities, lairs, and beastiary of Giants and Giant adjacent monsters, and some Giant spells and magic items. It could be cool if they find that sweet spot of following the Fizban's formula and allowing the book to be it's own. It'll be cool to see what guidance they provide for Giant varieties deviating from their "typical" alignments.
Yeah, I am thinking a book like Fizban's, but about Giants.
I Think the subclasses in this UA are very well designed. Trying to figure out what type of book the UA is for though
Prehistoric I think this is at least somewhat unlikely. While primeval druid could hint at a possible prehistoric era book, there's nothing else pointing to it, and the giants just don't mesh with it. It would be hard to see one UA going to multiple books, so whatever the druid is for it must involve giants. I could maybe see giants being prehistoric, because prehistoric creatures tend to be large, but I'd give it a 5-15% chance. I'm not sure how I feel about a prehistoric book were it to come out. It'd be unique which is nice, but is hard to make really interesting so given the quality of the UA I'd rather it be something else.
Giant Fizban This seems the most likely to me. Fizban's seemed pretty successful, and it best fits having character options. An adventure could be giant bases, but then it likely wouldn't have three subclasses. The only problem being that giants don't seem to me like they'd be the next choice after dragons. But given the other evidence,I'd give this a 25-30% chance. If we do see a Fizban's for giants, I would probably get it. I enjoyed Fizban's, and a deep dive into giants seems pretty cool.
Setting. This is a possibility. However, it'd have to be a largely giant based setting, which as far as I know isn't any of the most popular settings. Plus, with two settings confirmed for this year already. If it's a setting, it'll probably be a new from WotC setting or one that is little known (unless I'm forgetting a giant based setting) which seems pretty cool, given that it'd be a new setting for once. I'd probably get it. However I don't think it's very likely. 10-20%
Dragons vs Giants No one else brought this up, but it's possible they're making either a lore book or an adventure book designed around the dragons vs giant war. In isolation, this sounds awesome and fairly likely. But given Fizban's just came out, this would feel to redundant and does not seem likely. 1-5% chance.
Something Else All these predictions have flaws. Sometimes we could guess it from a mile away but this is really just unclear. None of the options seem exactly right... My bets would be that its not one of these. 40-50%
(also check my maths on the percentages to see if they match up. I dare you)
Hey, I have nothing against moaning and being a pessimist. I'm a pessimistic nihilist that hates capitalism and corporations in general. But I also try to not automatically assume the worst in people unless absolutely necessary.
I'm just trying to correct mistakes whenever they come up.
But you do have brilliant points, though I disagree on the Strixhaven book which was marketed by WotC as an adventure book (and is an adventure book as they literally stripped out the entire heart of the setting and its lore),
But it is a new setting book, too. It can be both. Acq Inc was simultaneously a zany "Build a Franchise/Corporation in D&D" product and also a decent adventure where you collect the 6 Infinity Clocks from across the Sword Coast in order to prevent an invasion from the Far Realm. Strixhaven is both a setting book and an adventure book.
Also, remember that Ravenloft came out recently in a pretty standard Setting book format. And it sold really well. I don't think WotC is going to completely abandon a working format just because they want to try something new.
and on Spelljammer being the only three book setting (Ray Winninger implied otherwise and if I know WotC at all they are going to do this again)
Hey, I didn't say that it was going to be the only setting formatted in this way. I just think that this format is going to be pretty rare, and only applied to similar settings (Planescape is the main one; One Manual of the Planes, one book on Sigil and Player Options, one book on all the monsters from the Great Wheel).
I don't think that this new format is going to be the standard. I would be really surprised (and a bit upset) if they transitioned to the "3 tiny book sets with a DM screen and poster map" as the main format for updated settings in the future.
Sure, they'll probably do it again for Planescape and maybe another couple settings, but I seriously doubt that they'd do it for allof their future setting books.
and inflation (the books are already overpriced if you consider you can buy MtG art books, with all new writing and hardcovers and art and the same number of pages for less than half the price of a D&D book).
Apples and Oranges. You really can't compare M:tG Art books and D&D Rulebooks for pricing like this. Especially when (to my knowledge from a quick google search) there hasn't been an art book since 4 years ago. And there's a bigger team necessary to make a D&D book. You need game designers, playtesters, an art team, planning for over about 18 months in advance, writers, editors, and so on. The team necessary to produce an art book is much smaller and can undoubtedly finish a book quicker than the team necessary for making an official D&D 5e book. Oh, and that's not even counting all of the digital integration necessary for a D&D 5e product. Or how much more they market a D&D 5e book over a M:tG Art Book.
A D&D 5e book needs to sell well enough to pay off over a year's worth of work. I'm fairly certain an art book would take less work and time to put together, even if it does have some new content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Also for those protesting that its not a release this year because of the masses of content: Welcome to Hasbro, where they make you put out too many books for breakfast. I'd advise you not underestimate the company that does MtG at the moment, because the level of content they're putting out is stressful in and of itself.
Okay. But we're going off of all of the patterns that WotC has followed in the past. They never put out a UA this soon to the actual release of the book. They can't. They need time to revise the book based on survey feedback before they send off the book to the printer (and they have to send the book off to the printer months before the book is actually released). Strixhaven's UA came out in June, and the book was released in December. The Draconic Options UA came out in April, and Fizban's was released in November. Gothic Lineages came out in January, and Van Richten's was released in May. The Tasha's Feats UA came out in July, and TCoE came out mid-November.
There's generally at least 4 and half months between the last UA for a book and the release date of the book. Normally more. Quite frequently, lot more. The Folk of the Feywild UA came out 9 months before the Hobgoblin of the Feywild was officially published in Monsters of the Multiverse.
I'm not saying that Hasbro/WotC wouldn't release a book this year if they could. I'm saying that they literally physically can't print this UA in a book this summer, unless they somehow completely overhauled their Playtest-to-Print timeline. They probably can't even print this UA anytime this year because of the paper shortages and the books that they're already scheduled to release this year (Radiant Citadel, Spelljammer, Dragonlance). They've already scheduled 5 books for release this year (Multiverse and Netherdeep on top of the other three scheduled for this year's release). I highly doubt that we're seeing this UA being officially printed before the end of the year.
I don't doubt how eager Hasbro would be to squeeze even more money out of D&D 5e if they could. However, I do doubt the chance of this book being released anytime soon. I don't think that it's physically possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Again, look up the Dawn War, everyone. D&D 4e had a major part of its creation myth be the Dawn War, which is the war between the Gods (including the Dragons) and the Primordials (including Elementals and Giants). It's one of the explanations for why Dragons and Giants hate each other so much. James Wyatt wrote a lot of the 4e lore about this stuff, and he's credited in this UA.
If they want to, they could easily do a Prehistoric Setting book taking place during the Dawn War having the war between Dragons and Giants. It could even take place on the First World they've been focusing on recently.
I really don't think that a Fizban's for Giants is likely. There's just not enough of them in D&D's history to justify that. Especially with how much lore we got for them in Volo's. (Yes, I know it's not available on this site to buy anymore, but it's still a part of 5e. Dragons got their own book specifically because they weren't covered in Volo's or Mordenkainen's yet.)
Seriously, I'm calling it. This is a Prehistoric setting book. Winners of this bet get bragging rights.
You know, given all of the good ideas thrown about here, maybe what they're trying to do is a Fizban's, but not just for Giants? Like, We have the Prehistoric Druid, so maybe we'll get some new Prehistoric Dino stat blocks and such. There's also the connection to the Elemental Planes that's been brought up, so maybe they could throw in some stats for Primordials and Elementals in there too, to fill out the book. I dunno how long Genie's have been a thing in Lore, but they're elemental too, so maybe throw them in as well? That would probably be enough content to justify a book.
Also for those protesting that its not a release this year because of the masses of content: Welcome to Hasbro, where they make you put out too many books for breakfast. I'd advise you not underestimate the company that does MtG at the moment, because the level of content they're putting out is stressful in and of itself.
I understand what you're saying, but you can really buy the content or not buy it. I don't mind them throwing out D&D books like they're donuts. The content is really self-contained (except for the core, and rules extensions like Tasha's), so you can buy what you want, and throw away the rest. Or buy it later, when it suits you better. There is no need to stress yourself.
Dinosaur druids sound dope. I don't have any further input, Though I agree that runecrafter should be an artificer.
I see a lot of people saying that. And yes, it could be an artificer. However, it can also be a wizard. Why not? Another thing is to argue that there are many wizards, while there are few artificers. Ok, I understand that. But thematically, a wizard seems perfect for the runecrafter as it is proposed. If the problem is "crafter", the complaint should be the name (something like rune mage, or rune sage, or something like that). But the description of the subclass, and the things it gives you, are thematically for a wizard.
However, I do think that rune feats would be ideal as the "core" of a runecrafter artificer. That, in my opinion, should be a subclass of artificer and not two feats.
The whole rune-based Wizard / Artificer thing really stirred things up.
Personally, my worry is that the Wizard will lose this pretty neat subclass in response to this feedback; when the answer should be to give the Artificer their own rune subclass, with features appropriate to…well…actually building things with runes etched into them.
(snaps) Like a gem carver! They could make ioun stones! That’d be kind of cool.
Seriously, though…a Wizard who studies the history of ancient symbols of power has such broad application for different creature types, and character concepts…I don’t want that potential thrown away over a disagreement.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
I hope we get some UA on a wizard subclass with some more HP, but maybe access to less powerful spells. Either way, I want a less traditional, more HP wizard and I want WotC to try a balanced way of achieving that in UA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wizards has no MSRP. It doesn't publish it.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I gtg but yeah this UA has tickled my interest.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Yeah, I am thinking a book like Fizban's, but about Giants.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I Think the subclasses in this UA are very well designed. Trying to figure out what type of book the UA is for though
Prehistoric
I think this is at least somewhat unlikely. While primeval druid could hint at a possible prehistoric era book, there's nothing else pointing to it, and the giants just don't mesh with it. It would be hard to see one UA going to multiple books, so whatever the druid is for it must involve giants. I could maybe see giants being prehistoric, because prehistoric creatures tend to be large, but I'd give it a 5-15% chance. I'm not sure how I feel about a prehistoric book were it to come out. It'd be unique which is nice, but is hard to make really interesting so given the quality of the UA I'd rather it be something else.
Giant Fizban
This seems the most likely to me. Fizban's seemed pretty successful, and it best fits having character options. An adventure could be giant bases, but then it likely wouldn't have three subclasses. The only problem being that giants don't seem to me like they'd be the next choice after dragons. But given the other evidence,I'd give this a 25-30% chance. If we do see a Fizban's for giants, I would probably get it. I enjoyed Fizban's, and a deep dive into giants seems pretty cool.
Setting.
This is a possibility. However, it'd have to be a largely giant based setting, which as far as I know isn't any of the most popular settings. Plus, with two settings confirmed for this year already. If it's a setting, it'll probably be a new from WotC setting or one that is little known (unless I'm forgetting a giant based setting) which seems pretty cool, given that it'd be a new setting for once. I'd probably get it. However I don't think it's very likely. 10-20%
Dragons vs Giants
No one else brought this up, but it's possible they're making either a lore book or an adventure book designed around the dragons vs giant war. In isolation, this sounds awesome and fairly likely. But given Fizban's just came out, this would feel to redundant and does not seem likely. 1-5% chance.
Something Else
All these predictions have flaws. Sometimes we could guess it from a mile away but this is really just unclear. None of the options seem exactly right... My bets would be that its not one of these. 40-50%
(also check my maths on the percentages to see if they match up. I dare you)
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Hey, I have nothing against moaning and being a pessimist. I'm a pessimistic nihilist that hates capitalism and corporations in general. But I also try to not automatically assume the worst in people unless absolutely necessary.
I'm just trying to correct mistakes whenever they come up.
But it is a new setting book, too. It can be both. Acq Inc was simultaneously a zany "Build a Franchise/Corporation in D&D" product and also a decent adventure where you collect the 6 Infinity Clocks from across the Sword Coast in order to prevent an invasion from the Far Realm. Strixhaven is both a setting book and an adventure book.
Also, remember that Ravenloft came out recently in a pretty standard Setting book format. And it sold really well. I don't think WotC is going to completely abandon a working format just because they want to try something new.
Hey, I didn't say that it was going to be the only setting formatted in this way. I just think that this format is going to be pretty rare, and only applied to similar settings (Planescape is the main one; One Manual of the Planes, one book on Sigil and Player Options, one book on all the monsters from the Great Wheel).
I don't think that this new format is going to be the standard. I would be really surprised (and a bit upset) if they transitioned to the "3 tiny book sets with a DM screen and poster map" as the main format for updated settings in the future.
Sure, they'll probably do it again for Planescape and maybe another couple settings, but I seriously doubt that they'd do it for all of their future setting books.
Apples and Oranges. You really can't compare M:tG Art books and D&D Rulebooks for pricing like this. Especially when (to my knowledge from a quick google search) there hasn't been an art book since 4 years ago. And there's a bigger team necessary to make a D&D book. You need game designers, playtesters, an art team, planning for over about 18 months in advance, writers, editors, and so on. The team necessary to produce an art book is much smaller and can undoubtedly finish a book quicker than the team necessary for making an official D&D 5e book. Oh, and that's not even counting all of the digital integration necessary for a D&D 5e product. Or how much more they market a D&D 5e book over a M:tG Art Book.
A D&D 5e book needs to sell well enough to pay off over a year's worth of work. I'm fairly certain an art book would take less work and time to put together, even if it does have some new content.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Oranges, thank you.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Okay. But we're going off of all of the patterns that WotC has followed in the past. They never put out a UA this soon to the actual release of the book. They can't. They need time to revise the book based on survey feedback before they send off the book to the printer (and they have to send the book off to the printer months before the book is actually released). Strixhaven's UA came out in June, and the book was released in December. The Draconic Options UA came out in April, and Fizban's was released in November. Gothic Lineages came out in January, and Van Richten's was released in May. The Tasha's Feats UA came out in July, and TCoE came out mid-November.
There's generally at least 4 and half months between the last UA for a book and the release date of the book. Normally more. Quite frequently, lot more. The Folk of the Feywild UA came out 9 months before the Hobgoblin of the Feywild was officially published in Monsters of the Multiverse.
I'm not saying that Hasbro/WotC wouldn't release a book this year if they could. I'm saying that they literally physically can't print this UA in a book this summer, unless they somehow completely overhauled their Playtest-to-Print timeline. They probably can't even print this UA anytime this year because of the paper shortages and the books that they're already scheduled to release this year (Radiant Citadel, Spelljammer, Dragonlance). They've already scheduled 5 books for release this year (Multiverse and Netherdeep on top of the other three scheduled for this year's release). I highly doubt that we're seeing this UA being officially printed before the end of the year.
I don't doubt how eager Hasbro would be to squeeze even more money out of D&D 5e if they could. However, I do doubt the chance of this book being released anytime soon. I don't think that it's physically possible.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
My guess is that it's all of these 3.
Again, look up the Dawn War, everyone. D&D 4e had a major part of its creation myth be the Dawn War, which is the war between the Gods (including the Dragons) and the Primordials (including Elementals and Giants). It's one of the explanations for why Dragons and Giants hate each other so much. James Wyatt wrote a lot of the 4e lore about this stuff, and he's credited in this UA.
If they want to, they could easily do a Prehistoric Setting book taking place during the Dawn War having the war between Dragons and Giants. It could even take place on the First World they've been focusing on recently.
I really don't think that a Fizban's for Giants is likely. There's just not enough of them in D&D's history to justify that. Especially with how much lore we got for them in Volo's. (Yes, I know it's not available on this site to buy anymore, but it's still a part of 5e. Dragons got their own book specifically because they weren't covered in Volo's or Mordenkainen's yet.)
Seriously, I'm calling it. This is a Prehistoric setting book. Winners of this bet get bragging rights.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
As unlikely as it is, I would love if this UA were teasing the Dawn War and Nentir Vale.
Ah, what the hell, why not? unlikely though it is, I'm placing my bet on the Dawn War!
You know, given all of the good ideas thrown about here, maybe what they're trying to do is a Fizban's, but not just for Giants? Like, We have the Prehistoric Druid, so maybe we'll get some new Prehistoric Dino stat blocks and such. There's also the connection to the Elemental Planes that's been brought up, so maybe they could throw in some stats for Primordials and Elementals in there too, to fill out the book. I dunno how long Genie's have been a thing in Lore, but they're elemental too, so maybe throw them in as well? That would probably be enough content to justify a book.
Or maybe they'll be split over a few books, that's happened in UA before too.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I understand what you're saying, but you can really buy the content or not buy it. I don't mind them throwing out D&D books like they're donuts. The content is really self-contained (except for the core, and rules extensions like Tasha's), so you can buy what you want, and throw away the rest. Or buy it later, when it suits you better. There is no need to stress yourself.
The prehistoric part could point to Chult, but I don't remember a Giant presence in that setting for FR.
Folk of the Feywild comes to mind.
Dinosaur druids sound dope. I don't have any further input, Though I agree that runecrafter should be an artificer.
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
I see a lot of people saying that. And yes, it could be an artificer. However, it can also be a wizard. Why not?
Another thing is to argue that there are many wizards, while there are few artificers. Ok, I understand that. But thematically, a wizard seems perfect for the runecrafter as it is proposed. If the problem is "crafter", the complaint should be the name (something like rune mage, or rune sage, or something like that). But the description of the subclass, and the things it gives you, are thematically for a wizard.
However, I do think that rune feats would be ideal as the "core" of a runecrafter artificer. That, in my opinion, should be a subclass of artificer and not two feats.
The whole rune-based Wizard / Artificer thing really stirred things up.
Personally, my worry is that the Wizard will lose this pretty neat subclass in response to this feedback; when the answer should be to give the Artificer their own rune subclass, with features appropriate to…well…actually building things with runes etched into them.
(snaps) Like a gem carver! They could make ioun stones! That’d be kind of cool.
Seriously, though…a Wizard who studies the history of ancient symbols of power has such broad application for different creature types, and character concepts…I don’t want that potential thrown away over a disagreement.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I hope we get some UA on a wizard subclass with some more HP, but maybe access to less powerful spells. Either way, I want a less traditional, more HP wizard and I want WotC to try a balanced way of achieving that in UA.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.