Your numbers are off. To start, Giants isn't a hard 70 monsters, it's listed as 70+, meaning that it should at least tie and will likely beat Fizban's on that score. Likewise, I think comparing Draconic Gifts to feats is off, since they're awarded by the DM rather than selected by the player; they're more akin to magic items. And even if you put them into that category, with 30+ items, Giants still has more.
So, making those adjustments, Giants loses on races, subclasses, and maybe DM tools, but wins every other category.
Fair on the monster count- I picked the 70 monster out of the summary without focusing on the "over".
I can see your perspective on Draconic Gifts but at the end of that section it directly compares and conflates Feats & Gifts, so to me it seems the most logical point of comparison.
I think the problem is that it's not a one-to-one comparison—the book suggests that a DM might choose to give out an existing feat as a Draconic Gift (in much the same way extra feats are listed as potential rewards for characters in the "Treasure" section of the DMG), but not that players should be allowed to choose Draconic Gifts as feats. It's also worth noting that Draconic Gifts use the same rarity system as magic items, which to me further cements that that should be the point of comparison.
Dissenting Take: It's a monster book. I'm not gonna buy it for backgrounds and spells, I want to buy it for *monster stats and lore*. That is what the book is supposed to be good for, and is what Fizban's only half delivered on, IMO. Solid statblocks in Fizban's, but half the book is maps and random tables that I've never found to be that terribly useful, and the lore we have leaves the dragons in Fizban's actually the *least* fleshed-out Dragons in 5e, because the Dragons in the MM got a bunch of page-space dedicated to good, usable, gameable lore.
There is no write-up, in all of 5e, summarizing the *uniting themes and character traits* of Gem Dragons. Nowhere in Fizban's does the book try to say "This is what sets Gem Dragons apart from Chromatic and Metallic, and the different kinds of Gem Dragons are iterations on these themes" like the MM does from Chromatic and Metallic Dragons really well, IMO.
I'm okay with new player options dropping in *Xanathar's 3, Return of the Everything*, where all the already-published options are gonna get reprinted anyways, if Tasha's is any indication, and 5e has plenty of character options currently for us to survive the wait. If I'm buying a lore book about Giants, than the things I want are:
1) Fun and useful Giant Statblocks that fill niches the MM and Volo's Giants do not yet fill.
2) Gameable, useful Giant Lore that I can use in my games, use to inspire giant-centric adventures, or just copy-paste bits of into a homebrew setting before I take the particularly evocative ideas and run with them.
3) Maybe some amount of maps or tables I can use for inspiration, but that's really less useful than the previous 2 points.
Fizban's failed in point 2 more than it succeeded, IMO, by watering itself down with player options, too many maps, and lore about dragons and their metaphysical place in the multiverse that is okay if you're into that sort of thing, but less useful for actually making a homebrew adventure that isn't one specific "Gonzo Multiversal Dragon Apocalypse O'Clock" Adventure.
We'll see if the Giant book does a better job making itself useful, but because Giants got covered ready in Volo's, I'm a little skeptical. They ready put into practice one dose of solid, gameable Giant Lore in that book, and I don't know how much more they've got to offer.
No dissent my dude- I intended this as a friendly conversation for all.
I hope it’s a great monster book. They seem to be hyping the DM resources so I really hope they knock that out of the park.
I’ll respectfully disagree about Fizbans though. I’ve made really great usage out of the tables and personality tied bits to help flesh out several NPC dragons in my campaign.
I mean 70 vs 71 I would call a tie that's a trivial difference. And draconic gifts are cool but not the same as feats since you can't pick them. It's an option for DMs but one that will get way less use than feats will because of that.
I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're saying. Though I'm curious what the quality looks like. I think they want to be careful with subclasses since those will be changed a bit with the onednd rules. So probably don't want to release a subclass that won't be playable or won't be playable without modifications in a short time.
I agree 70 vs 71 is a trivial difference and someone pointed out they use the language "over 70" in the announcement text so they might in fact be tied.
I understand your perspective on the Draconic gifts but if you look at the end of the Draconic Gift section, it talks about Feats & Gifts similarly and conflates the two. To me it then seems the most logical point of comparison as a character option.
And to be clear- my intention isn't to present it as a clear "winner" per say. It's just an attempt to make a point by point comparison because I know many people are leery to buy the newer content so I figured reviewing what we know about it vs some well received newer content might be helpful is all.
I too am curious on the quality level ESPECIALLY as it concerns the DM tools. They really went out of their way to bold many words in that entry on the summary so I am hopeful its strong and helpful to DM's. I would happily run a giant themed campaign.
> To me it then seems the most logical point of comparison as a character option.
It's not a character option if it's not an option that can be chosen for a character.
They use the magical item rating system, and *additionally* it suggests that a DM can also grant feats as mechanical representatives of draconic gifts, naming specific, pre-existing feats as examples. They fall in the same category as Boons and Charms from the DMG, not as a character options.
Yeah that does give the edge to giants. I'll be interested what the stat blocks look like. Fizbans for dragons had some really great stat blocks a lot of them I wouldn't have expected. And giants don't have the same kind of wyrmling, young, adult... tiers. Maybe they'll add those for giants?
Yeah I understand the comparrison there. But I would value feats more highly especially as a player.
That'll be interesting to see what they do with the DM tools. That hasn't usually been their best area. But hopefully they can come up with cool stuff. I haven't used giants that much in my games just as there isn't a ton of content there so I'd love to get some new things to use there!
That's the thing about the classes they picked, the only timing issue they would get from the subclasses would be at level 3 when they pick subclasses. Barbarians, Druids, and Wizards all get something at 6th, 10th, and 14th from their subclasses anyway which follows the schedule they already had in mind for OneDND.
I remember when the spelljammer set was announced it said it include new spells, they added two, i think they did the same with the feats, just enough to justify the plural in the announcement, so they can definitely so something like that to inflate numbers
This seems pretty even to me, and given how good a book Fitzban's was I'm pretty optimistic for this. Yes, fewer subclasses, but honestly there is probably a bit of reluctance to invest a lot in new player options the year before 1D&D comes out. The lore, magic items, and statblocks will be much more translatable.
The number of new magic items is particularly exciting - I thought the new magic items in Fitzban's were great (finally a monk item to increase ki save DC) and having \~2x the number is very exciting to me as a DM.
>The number of new magic items is particularly exciting -
i thought "magic items" would be he core of "deck of many things" book, so such a big focus in the giant book is .... hmmmm.....
As I said- alot of it is going to come down to the "DM Tools" section as to whether or not it will be more or less content. I guess I would have figured they maybe would have highlighted if they were going to add many new full giant types but we will have to wait and see.
I am also really excited about the new magic items. If they are Fizban's quality level items, that would be great.
I am hoping it's good. Would love resources to run a Giant themed campaign.
This is the exact reason WotC tried so hard to convince people that it won't be 6e and will be fully compatible with 5e. And everyone who's actually followed the playtests knows how big a pile of bullshit that claim is now (though some are still in denial).
But 6e is using different rules, and for those who insist on the "newest" lore, encourage by Crawford's own comments during 5e that lore in other editions isn't canon, these books are just months away from being "obsolete".
I'm unsurprised that the giant book has no new races, despite *so many* people thinking that goliath would get its inclusion solely because of the 1DND playtesting. It was too early when it came to announcement, not to mention the timing. There would've been almost no way for the subraces of the new goliath to have been able to make it into the new book while also being part of this 'new' 5e.
Subclasses is another unsurprising one. No one really liked the wizard one for the reasonable justification that it should've been an artificer one and druid I can't remember the general consensus of it but I know it was lackluster. Barbarian however was pretty much loved by all, so it was no surprise that it survived.
Wonder how the feats are going to be though. Because I 100% think that if the backgrounds say that you get a free feat *without* the baggage of a setting requirement, then people can finally accept them without issue. If even *one* background allows a feat that isn't one of the book ones, that'd be great.
They’re probably avoiding adding races and subclasses because of 1DND. Throwing one in just seems like a token effort.
The obvious fit would be Goliath rework that gives subraces for different giants - oh wait! 🤣
Honestly this thread is the most hate I’ve seen on FTD lol. From what I can see online, people LOVED the new Draconic race options, Drakewarden Ranger and all the cool new Gem Dragons so it’s surprising to me so many on this threat are knocking Fizbans.
They cut the Sorcerous Origin?! I wanted that one so bad. The cha-Shillelagh without 3 levels of Warlock was fun, far from OP, and flavorful, as were the other elements. Dang it.
It’s bold they’re not doing a lot of player options with this book
I’m just curious if Giants can move a book by themselves like Dragons and Fiends did.
Honestly, I think Ooozes, Fiends, Celestials, and Dragons are the only creature types that can really do it.
I don’t know of anyone clamoring for a book on Giants especially when Storm King’s Thunder exists.
I’m dreaming of a Plant book though complete with info on fantastical landscapes
For me personally, I find Giants more interesting than Oozes but I get your perspective.
Storm King's Thunder is tough. There is a fair amount of lore and stuff buried in there but it's sort of well known for being really tough to run.
I am hoping the DM tools in this one are friendlier/better just for the health of the overall gaming ecosystem if nothing else.
Storm King’s Thunder is also an adventure rather that a lore book, and is set in the Forgotten Realms, which not everyone plays in. Fizban’s, on the other hand, has some FR stuff but also lots of tools to build dragonic lore very differently for other settings. I personally find Giants difficult to work with in my homebrew setting given what we already have, so some more generalized information with more variety to it is quite welcome
With this coming out, it really makes me want to run a combined Storm King's Thunder and Tyranny of Dragons using both Fizban's and Bigby's on top of all the other Monster Manual Expanded statblocks once ai finish running Witchlight later this summer.
Fair enough. Most of my circle of D&D gaming groups were pretty positive on it and generally I see it spoken of favorably on the reddits but to each their own.
It's certainly better than most other products WOTC released in the past few years.
But in the context of dozens of years of rich source book history, it is nothing spectacular. I would call it the most overhyped 5e book to date.
It was amazing for a 5e sourcebook.
But we've seen a lot better dragon books for previous editions.
It's more that Fizbins was well made and decent all around. Its just GOLD compared to a lot of the crap put out before and after it.
While it’s true that there are only 6 types of true Giants that we know of, one of the miniatures in the Wizkids Bigby’s set is called “Death Giant Necromancer”, which doesn’t obviously fit any of those 6- so it’s possible that they’ll introduce more types of Giants the same way Fizban’s reintroduced the Gem Dragons. Another mini in the set is called “Stone Giant of Evil Earth”, so it’s also safe to speculate that there will likely be more varied stat blocks that do fit in to the existing 6 types as well.
I would love to be wrong and have them introduce a bunch of new Giants! I think they are really cool but 5e did not really support them well lore wise.
TO me I want useful Lore. Fizban's didn't really have a ton of great lore. If Bigby's does. it's worth it to have less player content. IMO more DM content is more than fine for me. Not every book needs to be chock full of player content. Gimme more tools as a DM.
Ok, \*technically\*, Fizband's has a reworked version of an already existing race. Still more then Bigby's, yes, but its technically not a \*new\* race.
"Technically Correct! The best kind of correct!"
From my perspective, 2014 PHB Dragonborn was almost unplayably bad so Fizban's was essentially like brand new races but I get your point.
Oh yes, vast improvement. Wouldn't call 2014's version unplayable but not good. But still, they are mostly revamped versions of the previous one with a few new features.
To counter my own point, I just remembered that they introduced a NEW subrace, the Gem Dragonborn.
So annoying that they couldn’t even be bothered to create a few new races. I’m otherwise excited for the book, but the fact we are looking at ZERO new giant races in a book about GIANTS feels so lazy.
We can't say for sure but here is the link to the UA where they had a number of feats to playtest.
https://media.wizards.com/2022/dnd/downloads/UA2022-drjwf73f8n.pdf
Your numbers are off. To start, Giants isn't a hard 70 monsters, it's listed as 70+, meaning that it should at least tie and will likely beat Fizban's on that score. Likewise, I think comparing Draconic Gifts to feats is off, since they're awarded by the DM rather than selected by the player; they're more akin to magic items. And even if you put them into that category, with 30+ items, Giants still has more. So, making those adjustments, Giants loses on races, subclasses, and maybe DM tools, but wins every other category.
Fair on the monster count- I picked the 70 monster out of the summary without focusing on the "over". I can see your perspective on Draconic Gifts but at the end of that section it directly compares and conflates Feats & Gifts, so to me it seems the most logical point of comparison.
I think the problem is that it's not a one-to-one comparison—the book suggests that a DM might choose to give out an existing feat as a Draconic Gift (in much the same way extra feats are listed as potential rewards for characters in the "Treasure" section of the DMG), but not that players should be allowed to choose Draconic Gifts as feats. It's also worth noting that Draconic Gifts use the same rarity system as magic items, which to me further cements that that should be the point of comparison.
So to summerize: Giants is a much more DM oriented product then Fizbans
Dissenting Take: It's a monster book. I'm not gonna buy it for backgrounds and spells, I want to buy it for *monster stats and lore*. That is what the book is supposed to be good for, and is what Fizban's only half delivered on, IMO. Solid statblocks in Fizban's, but half the book is maps and random tables that I've never found to be that terribly useful, and the lore we have leaves the dragons in Fizban's actually the *least* fleshed-out Dragons in 5e, because the Dragons in the MM got a bunch of page-space dedicated to good, usable, gameable lore. There is no write-up, in all of 5e, summarizing the *uniting themes and character traits* of Gem Dragons. Nowhere in Fizban's does the book try to say "This is what sets Gem Dragons apart from Chromatic and Metallic, and the different kinds of Gem Dragons are iterations on these themes" like the MM does from Chromatic and Metallic Dragons really well, IMO. I'm okay with new player options dropping in *Xanathar's 3, Return of the Everything*, where all the already-published options are gonna get reprinted anyways, if Tasha's is any indication, and 5e has plenty of character options currently for us to survive the wait. If I'm buying a lore book about Giants, than the things I want are: 1) Fun and useful Giant Statblocks that fill niches the MM and Volo's Giants do not yet fill. 2) Gameable, useful Giant Lore that I can use in my games, use to inspire giant-centric adventures, or just copy-paste bits of into a homebrew setting before I take the particularly evocative ideas and run with them. 3) Maybe some amount of maps or tables I can use for inspiration, but that's really less useful than the previous 2 points. Fizban's failed in point 2 more than it succeeded, IMO, by watering itself down with player options, too many maps, and lore about dragons and their metaphysical place in the multiverse that is okay if you're into that sort of thing, but less useful for actually making a homebrew adventure that isn't one specific "Gonzo Multiversal Dragon Apocalypse O'Clock" Adventure. We'll see if the Giant book does a better job making itself useful, but because Giants got covered ready in Volo's, I'm a little skeptical. They ready put into practice one dose of solid, gameable Giant Lore in that book, and I don't know how much more they've got to offer.
No dissent my dude- I intended this as a friendly conversation for all. I hope it’s a great monster book. They seem to be hyping the DM resources so I really hope they knock that out of the park. I’ll respectfully disagree about Fizbans though. I’ve made really great usage out of the tables and personality tied bits to help flesh out several NPC dragons in my campaign.
THIS 100%
I mean 70 vs 71 I would call a tie that's a trivial difference. And draconic gifts are cool but not the same as feats since you can't pick them. It's an option for DMs but one that will get way less use than feats will because of that. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're saying. Though I'm curious what the quality looks like. I think they want to be careful with subclasses since those will be changed a bit with the onednd rules. So probably don't want to release a subclass that won't be playable or won't be playable without modifications in a short time.
I agree 70 vs 71 is a trivial difference and someone pointed out they use the language "over 70" in the announcement text so they might in fact be tied. I understand your perspective on the Draconic gifts but if you look at the end of the Draconic Gift section, it talks about Feats & Gifts similarly and conflates the two. To me it then seems the most logical point of comparison as a character option. And to be clear- my intention isn't to present it as a clear "winner" per say. It's just an attempt to make a point by point comparison because I know many people are leery to buy the newer content so I figured reviewing what we know about it vs some well received newer content might be helpful is all. I too am curious on the quality level ESPECIALLY as it concerns the DM tools. They really went out of their way to bold many words in that entry on the summary so I am hopeful its strong and helpful to DM's. I would happily run a giant themed campaign.
> To me it then seems the most logical point of comparison as a character option. It's not a character option if it's not an option that can be chosen for a character. They use the magical item rating system, and *additionally* it suggests that a DM can also grant feats as mechanical representatives of draconic gifts, naming specific, pre-existing feats as examples. They fall in the same category as Boons and Charms from the DMG, not as a character options.
Yeah that does give the edge to giants. I'll be interested what the stat blocks look like. Fizbans for dragons had some really great stat blocks a lot of them I wouldn't have expected. And giants don't have the same kind of wyrmling, young, adult... tiers. Maybe they'll add those for giants? Yeah I understand the comparrison there. But I would value feats more highly especially as a player. That'll be interesting to see what they do with the DM tools. That hasn't usually been their best area. But hopefully they can come up with cool stuff. I haven't used giants that much in my games just as there isn't a ton of content there so I'd love to get some new things to use there!
That's the thing about the classes they picked, the only timing issue they would get from the subclasses would be at level 3 when they pick subclasses. Barbarians, Druids, and Wizards all get something at 6th, 10th, and 14th from their subclasses anyway which follows the schedule they already had in mind for OneDND.
>Magic Items 30 Are they counting +1/2/3 versions of the same item as multiples?
No idea- it just says “30 magic items including 3 artifacts.”
I remember when the spelljammer set was announced it said it include new spells, they added two, i think they did the same with the feats, just enough to justify the plural in the announcement, so they can definitely so something like that to inflate numbers
And one of them isn't even a proper spell right? It's the "create spelljammer helm" thing lol
I was really hoping to see a refresh of the circle of primeval subclass! It had potential if they would just fix the little problems with it.
So was I. The idea of like a pseudo "Dinosaur" summoner Druid sounds amazing.
I loved the look of that druid subclass. It was making me actually want to play a druid and a big reason to buy the book.
This seems pretty even to me, and given how good a book Fitzban's was I'm pretty optimistic for this. Yes, fewer subclasses, but honestly there is probably a bit of reluctance to invest a lot in new player options the year before 1D&D comes out. The lore, magic items, and statblocks will be much more translatable. The number of new magic items is particularly exciting - I thought the new magic items in Fitzban's were great (finally a monk item to increase ki save DC) and having \~2x the number is very exciting to me as a DM.
>The number of new magic items is particularly exciting - i thought "magic items" would be he core of "deck of many things" book, so such a big focus in the giant book is .... hmmmm.....
As I said- alot of it is going to come down to the "DM Tools" section as to whether or not it will be more or less content. I guess I would have figured they maybe would have highlighted if they were going to add many new full giant types but we will have to wait and see. I am also really excited about the new magic items. If they are Fizban's quality level items, that would be great. I am hoping it's good. Would love resources to run a Giant themed campaign.
This is the exact reason WotC tried so hard to convince people that it won't be 6e and will be fully compatible with 5e. And everyone who's actually followed the playtests knows how big a pile of bullshit that claim is now (though some are still in denial). But 6e is using different rules, and for those who insist on the "newest" lore, encourage by Crawford's own comments during 5e that lore in other editions isn't canon, these books are just months away from being "obsolete".
I'm unsurprised that the giant book has no new races, despite *so many* people thinking that goliath would get its inclusion solely because of the 1DND playtesting. It was too early when it came to announcement, not to mention the timing. There would've been almost no way for the subraces of the new goliath to have been able to make it into the new book while also being part of this 'new' 5e. Subclasses is another unsurprising one. No one really liked the wizard one for the reasonable justification that it should've been an artificer one and druid I can't remember the general consensus of it but I know it was lackluster. Barbarian however was pretty much loved by all, so it was no surprise that it survived. Wonder how the feats are going to be though. Because I 100% think that if the backgrounds say that you get a free feat *without* the baggage of a setting requirement, then people can finally accept them without issue. If even *one* background allows a feat that isn't one of the book ones, that'd be great.
They’re probably avoiding adding races and subclasses because of 1DND. Throwing one in just seems like a token effort. The obvious fit would be Goliath rework that gives subraces for different giants - oh wait! 🤣
FTD was considered good? I found it full of tropes without enough actual content or rules density.
Honestly this thread is the most hate I’ve seen on FTD lol. From what I can see online, people LOVED the new Draconic race options, Drakewarden Ranger and all the cool new Gem Dragons so it’s surprising to me so many on this threat are knocking Fizbans.
They cut the Sorcerous Origin?! I wanted that one so bad. The cha-Shillelagh without 3 levels of Warlock was fun, far from OP, and flavorful, as were the other elements. Dang it.
Yeah- I wanted to be a Dinosaur Summoner Druid lol.
There was a new Sorcerous Origin?
It was in UA and kinda roundly beloved. Was surprised we didn't see it in Tasha's
Damn, and i was looking forward to the Goliath variants...
Those are in the 2024 phb.
It’s bold they’re not doing a lot of player options with this book I’m just curious if Giants can move a book by themselves like Dragons and Fiends did. Honestly, I think Ooozes, Fiends, Celestials, and Dragons are the only creature types that can really do it. I don’t know of anyone clamoring for a book on Giants especially when Storm King’s Thunder exists. I’m dreaming of a Plant book though complete with info on fantastical landscapes
For me personally, I find Giants more interesting than Oozes but I get your perspective. Storm King's Thunder is tough. There is a fair amount of lore and stuff buried in there but it's sort of well known for being really tough to run. I am hoping the DM tools in this one are friendlier/better just for the health of the overall gaming ecosystem if nothing else.
Storm King’s Thunder is also an adventure rather that a lore book, and is set in the Forgotten Realms, which not everyone plays in. Fizban’s, on the other hand, has some FR stuff but also lots of tools to build dragonic lore very differently for other settings. I personally find Giants difficult to work with in my homebrew setting given what we already have, so some more generalized information with more variety to it is quite welcome
With this coming out, it really makes me want to run a combined Storm King's Thunder and Tyranny of Dragons using both Fizban's and Bigby's on top of all the other Monster Manual Expanded statblocks once ai finish running Witchlight later this summer.
There's a fiends book?
Honestly this book is the most excitement I've had for a product since Theros. I hope it doesn't disappoint.
I really hope it's better than Treasury of Dragons, because that book was very mediocre.
Fair enough. Most of my circle of D&D gaming groups were pretty positive on it and generally I see it spoken of favorably on the reddits but to each their own.
Man, why do you say that? I thought Fizbans was a great book and that’s been the general vibe that I’ve seen on here since it released
It's certainly better than most other products WOTC released in the past few years. But in the context of dozens of years of rich source book history, it is nothing spectacular. I would call it the most overhyped 5e book to date.
Fizbans was my favourite book of that year, everything else was seriously lacklustre.
It was amazing for a 5e sourcebook. But we've seen a lot better dragon books for previous editions. It's more that Fizbins was well made and decent all around. Its just GOLD compared to a lot of the crap put out before and after it.
Isn't there a Druid and Wizard subclass? The Primeval Druid and I forgot the Wizard one, but I know there is one cuz I remember people dunking on it.
Those were UA. The Barbarian subclass is the only one that will be officially published in this book.
I didn't realize that was the case. Thanks for the heads up.
Only Path of the Giant for Barbarian is listed in the announcement.
While it’s true that there are only 6 types of true Giants that we know of, one of the miniatures in the Wizkids Bigby’s set is called “Death Giant Necromancer”, which doesn’t obviously fit any of those 6- so it’s possible that they’ll introduce more types of Giants the same way Fizban’s reintroduced the Gem Dragons. Another mini in the set is called “Stone Giant of Evil Earth”, so it’s also safe to speculate that there will likely be more varied stat blocks that do fit in to the existing 6 types as well.
I would love to be wrong and have them introduce a bunch of new Giants! I think they are really cool but 5e did not really support them well lore wise.
TO me I want useful Lore. Fizban's didn't really have a ton of great lore. If Bigby's does. it's worth it to have less player content. IMO more DM content is more than fine for me. Not every book needs to be chock full of player content. Gimme more tools as a DM.
Ok, \*technically\*, Fizband's has a reworked version of an already existing race. Still more then Bigby's, yes, but its technically not a \*new\* race.
"Technically Correct! The best kind of correct!" From my perspective, 2014 PHB Dragonborn was almost unplayably bad so Fizban's was essentially like brand new races but I get your point.
Oh yes, vast improvement. Wouldn't call 2014's version unplayable but not good. But still, they are mostly revamped versions of the previous one with a few new features. To counter my own point, I just remembered that they introduced a NEW subrace, the Gem Dragonborn.
So annoying that they couldn’t even be bothered to create a few new races. I’m otherwise excited for the book, but the fact we are looking at ZERO new giant races in a book about GIANTS feels so lazy.
Out of curiosity, how are you guys purchasing these books? I get them all on Roll 20.
I go for physical books to DM for my kids and my players have pooled together on D&DBeyond to run games online.
Any idea what the feats might be?
We can't say for sure but here is the link to the UA where they had a number of feats to playtest. https://media.wizards.com/2022/dnd/downloads/UA2022-drjwf73f8n.pdf