Some initial thoughts on the Path of Giants Barbarian (and other things in Bigby's)

[LudicSavant]

- This looks like it might be a new contender for strongest Barbarian subclass... in-combat, at least. Out of combat, it's yet another Barbarian subclass with less going on than Totem.

- Your thrown weapons can now add your Rage bonus, but can't be used with Reckless Attack. I like that detail -- it means there's still a reason for you to actually go into melee opportunistically, but that you're not quite so dependent on melee combat as other Barbarians. (Personally, I wish all Barbarians could apply Rage to ranged attacks)

- It can get big and grapple like a Rune Knight, but with extra mobility. With Fast Movement and Instinctive Pounce you can be moving 60 feet on round 1 and 40 on subsequent rounds, (potentially more by stacking on other features).

- Since you can get bigger, you can really lean in to making grappling your main schtick without fear of enemies being immune to it. Even if you meet the odd Gargantuan foe, you can have an ally cast Enlarge on you (or maybe use a potion, if you can get your hands on 'em). Of course, you'll have to worry about how much stuff you can fit in your hands.

- It gets a per-attack damage boost that applies to all of your attacks with a given weapon. One thing that will be interesting to explore is the notion of simply not using Great Weapon Master for once (because the higher your damage-per-hit, the worse a deal -5/+10 is. And you're basically packing a natural, stackable Flametongue. That, and you might want to hit someone while grappling, anywho).

- Being able to get a +2d6 damage bonus to all attacks makes me expect that we'll be seeing builds looking to get more attacks, such as dipping Fighter or the like.

- You can throw Medium creatures 30 feet as a bonus action (in any direction, including up into the air watching them fall prone), but they get a Strength save. Seems like a good way to kill smaller baddies by throwing them into the local Spirit Guardians or the like, then watching them fail to get out because you knocked them prone. Looks like a fun time. The size limitation and saving throw means it feels distinct from being just another tool to do more damage to the biggest foe on the field (the Barb's typical role). Indeed, you'll be doing it instead of the usual bonus action attack that many Barbarian builds use, again giving some more reason to consider other options. I like that trend.

- Another thing I like about Mighty Impel is that it's excellent for teamwork. It essentially lets you spend your bonus action to give an ally a 30 foot move and disengage. Eat your heart out, Cunning Action.

- There are some people talking about using oversized weapons (just like there was when Rune Knight came out), but this seems dubious at best (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/198758/how-do-enlarge-reduce-spell-interact-with-the-oversized-weapons-rule-when-you-en/198761#198761). The quote used to support the notion comes from a paragraph specifically about making up stats for homebrew monsters, in a chapter of the DMG that specifically says it's for optional rules and homebrew guidelines. And sure enough, WotC themselves seem to use that paragraph only as a guideline (since there are various monsters using weapons that don't follow it). I wouldn't bet on being able to pick up a giant's greatsword for extra dice of damage any more than I'd expect to pick up a Summer Eladrin's longbow and start doing 2d8 piercing instead of 1d8.

- It has no direct defensive features, unlike, say, Zealot. So while it may hit hard, it isn't going to be rerolling any saves or the like. However, being able to throw returning flametongue greatswords at range is a defense in its own right (as is using grapple/shove combos on larger enemies, or tossing them, or having longer reach). Flexible positioning is a potent thing that Barbarians often get altogether too little of.

__

Aside from the Barbarian subclass, Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants has unsubtle AI generated art, new backgrounds that give combat-focused feats instead of the flavorful features of PHB backgrounds, and it's brought us more feat chains, a rather infamous mechanic from older editions (and in those editions, feats weren't as scarce as they are now. A feat chain in 5e now represents an 8 level commitment for a single choice).

I will note that it suggests that if you include one of the new backgrounds, you should give a feat (either Skilled or Tough) to each of the old backgrounds. But this is still weird -- the new backgrounds get a feat instead of a flavorful background feature, whereas old backgrounds would get their old features plus Skilled or Tough.

Barb subclass seems solid though, definitely a contender for strongest Barbarian.

[stoutstien]

The only thing that irks me is the lack of none rage based abilities or features. They get what? A limited language and cantrip pick?

[Amechra]

a rather infamous mechanic from older editions

Feat chains aren't inherently bad, it's just that 3e/3.5 implemented them in a hilariously terribly fashion. They more-or-less figured out a better implementation later in the edition (instead of making an arbitrary chain of feats, they had feats that either explicitly or implicitly scaled off of the number of related feats you took), but of course no-one's allowed to base anything off of material from later in 3.5's lifespan1...

Also, yeah, that solution really wouldn't work well with 5e's whole "we're expecting you to take a couple feats at most" vibe.

1 There's an unbelievable number of cool ideas from 3.5 that have just been entirely ignored by later editions, and that kinda bums me out.

[Theodoxus]

1 There's an unbelievable number of cool ideas from 3.5 that have just been entirely ignored by later editions, and that kinda bums me out.

I feel the same way about how they threw out nearly everything from 4th Ed, that they didn't implement in a worse manner in 5E.

Sadly, WotC doesn't see the D&D IP like a computer program, iterating on good ideas as tech (game theory) develops. Instead, they re-invent the wheel each time, good, bad, and otherwise ideas be damned.

Bummed out is a great way to put the result.

[strangebloke]

Yeah I mostly agree here as you know. I think that what really gets me about this barbarian is that its going to be more consistent and flexible overall.

Because you have really good damage at a baseline and don't NEED the damage feats, you can do other things with your feats, like bolstering defense and mobility. A lot of Barb builds do something like Custom Lineage -> PAM -> Slasher but there's no reason to really do that here. You can just pick a useful race and leave your STR at 14-16 and its just kind of fine. You have a big sword that deals bonus damage!

feats like ritual caster: wizard, or dragon fear, or ironically enough some of the giant feats in this book, really help compensate for the gaps in the barbarian's kit. IMO a big asset of barbarians is how they aren't really dependent on stats and can use ASIs for other purposes. Without needing feats for damage, this barbarian is much more open than say a bear totem.

And unlike say Beast, which feels like its going for similar energy, you are legitimately way more consistent. Throwing weapons and having longer reach means that you'll be able to be way more judicious with positioning, and way more able to hit targets when you need to.

Personally I'd consider combining this with a flying race to really lean into the mobility angle. flight and grappling and ranged attacks all go together reaaaal nice.

[Damon_Tor]

There are some people talking about using oversized weapons (just like there was when Rune Knight came out), but this seems dubious at best (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/198758/how-do-enlarge-reduce-spell-interact-with-the-oversized-weapons-rule-when-you-en/198761#198761).

It appears you've linked to a strawman argument. Here's a quote from the DMG supplied by that author:


Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it’s Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it’s Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.

But the author chose to omit the paragraph that follows. Why would they omit that paragraph? Judge for yourself:


A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.

This paragraph is the strongest argument that creatures are intended to be able to wield oversized weapons: deliberately excluding it from your counterargument doesn't exactly speak to the strength of said argument.

[Dr.Samurai]

I generally agree with the comments in the OP.


The only thing that irks me is the lack of none rage based abilities or features. They get what? A limited language and cantrip pick?
I do find it funny that you have to choose between Druidcraft or Thaumaturgy, as if having both would be too much :smallamused:

@Amechra and Theodoxus: Agreed that there are things we can take and build on from previous editions.


Personally I'd consider combining this with a flying race to really lean into the mobility angle. flight and grappling and ranged attacks all go together reaaaal nice.
A name isn't coming to mind but I'm sure there is a Power Rangers bird monster growing to huge size that this is reminding me of :smallbiggrin:.

[LudicSavant]

A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.This paragraph is the strongest argument that creatures are intended to be able to wield oversized weapons

The notion that said paragraph is the strongest argument is an opinion that may not be shared by either side of the discussion in the link, given that both sides omitted it.

That said, the paragraph you refer to is part of the section that opens like so:


As the Dungeon Master, you aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook , the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual. You can let your imagination run wild. This chapter contains optional rules that you can use to customize your campaign, as well as guidelines on creating your own material

But let's assume for the sake of argument that the DM's Workshop chapter is not just a section for optional rules and homebrew, and that pg278 really is default rules text. In that case, it goes back to an issue that comes up before we even consider the weapon's size, that being "If you take a monster's weapon, can you use its damage dice?" At which point, all the arguments against benefiting from a Summer Eladrin or Ice Devil's weaponry comes up, too. Even if you can wield the oversized weapon with disadvantage, there's still the question of whether or not you actually get to use the monster's damage dice.

As such, I wouldn't bet on getting an 8d6 damage sword just from looting a monster.

[Arkhios]

Jumping to the Rune Shaper feat (which is awesome by the way)...

Finally I can make a "Rune Scribe" in a way that is actually supported by the official rules! (The Unearthed Arcana playtest Prestige Class idea was interesting, but it had its flaws).

[ZRN]

It seems weird to me that this class gets both the ability to throw melee weapons with 20/60 range AND +5-10ft reach... so at level 14 if you have a polearm you could hypothetically throw it 20 feet to attack, but you can also just... reach out and make a melee attack 20ft away.

(Point being, the throwing weapons thing probably isn't very useful?)

[Arkhios]

It seems weird to me that this class gets both the ability to throw melee weapons with 20/60 range AND +5-10ft reach... so at level 14 if you have a polearm you could hypothetically throw it 20 feet to attack, but you can also just... reach out and make a melee attack 20ft away.

(Point being, the throwing weapons thing probably isn't very useful?)

Can they move upwards 20 feet? Some creatures do fly, y'know...

[tokek]

I love Rune Knight but I always felt that barbarian needed a giant subclass more than fighter. This is a well executed subclass, it works about as well as anything can on the 5e barbarian chassis.

The thing that instantly stood out to me is the combination of reach and grapple. This could be one of the best lower level lockdown builds - against any melee monster which is huge or smaller and that lacks reach or any special ability to escape grapples this is a potent combination. That is a pretty big list of monsters that are vulnerable to it at lower levels, which for a level 3 feature is just what you want.

Then at level 6 you get a great choice of damage types, bonus damage and returning thrown weapons. It still should work better in melee if you have grabbed a means to get a BA attack (which you should) or go reckless (which you sometimes should) but a barbarian which is at least competent at range is a big improvement. Plus of course you have the mental image of your barbarian hurling thunderbolts at their enemies, what's not to love about that?

Mighty Impel is a lovely alternative to Vortex Warp which remains my favourite spell from that book. Very nice stuff even if I think you won't get that many hostile Medium creatures to attempt it on by this level, it will mostly be used to put your friends where they want to be. This ability is all about the team game - positioning and combinations.

Demiurgic Colossus just turns the dial up on all the above to 11. In a way its the least appealing, partly because its at such a high level and you need something special at these levels. By contrast the level 15 Rune Knight feature is basically "All the rune uses you ever want, just throw them around and have fun buddy"

[tokek]

Jumping to the Rune Shaper feat (which is awesome by the way)...

Finally I can make a "Rune Scribe" in a way that is actually supported by the official rules! (The Unearthed Arcana playtest Prestige Class idea was interesting, but it had its flaws).

Rune Shaper is really nice and really well balanced against other feats such as Magic Initiate.

The strike of the giants feat and its follow-ups are a really nice addition to the game. If you get that feat in your background (and this is not a setting specific book, so I don't see why not other than DMs blocking it) its great for most martial builds. As a stand-alone feat you take instead of others I'm not quite so convinced by it but it does open up the 2nd level of those feats and some of those are nice.

For martial classes that have a lot of their build power tied up in ASI (hello Fighter and Rogue) its always a godsend to get feats added to the game that are relevant to martial characters even if they are not more powerful than existing feats. Running out of worthwhile feats to take has definitely been an issue when these classes get to higher levels.

[LudicSavant]

Sadly, WotC doesn't see the D&D IP like a computer program, iterating on good ideas as tech (game theory) develops. Instead, they re-invent the wheel each time, good, bad, and otherwise ideas be damned.

Bummed out is a great way to put the result.

Yeah, WotC could really stand to actually remember things it's fixed (or broken) in the past. Heck, that would have avoided the entire OGL fiasco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paEGFYSBZTE).


If you get that feat in your background (and this is not a setting specific book, so I don't see why not other than DMs blocking it) its great for most martial builds. As a stand-alone feat you take instead of others I'm not quite so convinced by it but it does open up the 2nd level of those feats and some of those are nice.

Technically it's always a 'feat you take instead of others,' since Path of the Giants retroactively adds level 1 feats to the game if the DM allows the new backgrounds. Also, the new backgrounds are missing a classical background feature (but if you pick an old background, you get the feature and a level 1 feat).

I'm personally not a fan of the feat chains in Glory of Giants. Choosing a chained feat essentially turns 2 interesting choices into 1. And in 5e, you've got a lot fewer feat choices to play with.

By contrast, I am a fan of PHB-style background features. It saddens me to see them getting tossed out the window.

[LudicSavant]

It seems weird to me that this class gets both the ability to throw melee weapons with 20/60 range AND +5-10ft reach... so at level 14 if you have a polearm you could hypothetically throw it 20 feet to attack, but you can also just... reach out and make a melee attack 20ft away.

(Point being, the throwing weapons thing probably isn't very useful?)

You could use a polearm, but you could also be Quick Tossing greatswords or even darts with Sharpshooter.

[Dr.Samurai]

Question 1: Thoughts on using Elemental Cleaver on unarmed strikes/natural attacks? It says you have to be holding the weapon, so I assume this wouldn't work, right?

Question 2: Is there a Yondu build somewhere in here? Using a Dart with +2 damage from Thrown Weapon Mastery (Archery is probably better but I don't care :smallamused: ), Rage bonus damage, and Sharpshooter? Maybe Barbarian 6/Samurai 3 for Fighting Spirit? Though you won't get Quick Toss from Battle Master, but you have Advantage on attacks.

[LudicSavant]

Maybe Barbarian 6/Samurai 3 for Fighting Spirit? Though you won't get Quick Toss from Battle Master, but you have Advantage on attacks.

I'd definitely take Battle Master over Samurai here. Bonus Action be crowded, and Battle Master be toploaded.

[Psyren]

It's worth considering that they likely designed this subclass with not just the current Barbarian chassis in mind, but what has a good chance of ending up as the new one. While this has resulted in one redundant feature (i.e. Crushing Throw - the UA barb allows every barbarian to add rage damage to thrown weapons so this is no longer needed) it also helps to address several of the weaknesses raised in this thread. In other words, there are structural issues with the base Barbarian they're looking to improve there, and that might explain why the newest subclass doesn't address these itself.

To summarize, these include:



Rage dependency: with Rage now lasting 10 minutes, your chances of having it up after a combat concludes for Giant's non-combat uses is higher, e.g. needing to Mighty Impel your party across that bridge that the dying kobolds torched to keep your party from advancing further into their lair, or maintaining your defenses while exploring shortly after a combat.
Non-combat Utility: With Primal Knowledge, making various exploration checks shortly before or after a combat will be done with the Barbarian's primary ability, buffing their usefulness in these situations.
Reckless Attack: The playtest version works with thrown weapons, giving you a reliable way to contribute in battles that aren't dangerous enough to need rage but difficult enough to want a boost of some kind. You won't have to risk melee to benefit from this feature in a combat where melee could prove deadly.
"Power Attack:" As that aspect of these feats (GWM/SS -5/+10 ) is going away in 5.5e, the damage boosts from this subclass will be more impactful (see Ludic's post.)


I agree there isn't much to this subclass defensively, but being the best ranged and reach Barbarian does help with that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Technically it's always a 'feat you take instead of others,' since Path of the Giants retroactively adds level 1 feats to the game if the DM allows the new backgrounds.
Also, the new backgrounds are missing a classical background feature (but if you pick an old background, you get the feature and a level 1 feat).

I'm personally not a fan of the feat chains in Glory of Giants. Choosing a chained feat essentially turns 2 interesting choices into 1. And in 5e, you've got a lot fewer feat choices to play with.

By contrast, I am a fan of PHB-style background features. It saddens me to see them getting tossed out the window. Agree, and also not a fan of feat chains. This is a move in the wrong direction. The Backgrounds in the PHB are fine, they need to leave them alone and fix other stuff.
I finally got the book but it will take a while for me to comment.
As I am playing a rune Knight, some of the feats look like they overlap with runes from that class.

[Polyphemus]

Wow, this book seems like it flew under the radar.
Which I can actually kind of understand, unfortunately. I was really hoping this book would be like Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons, except for giants, but it feels just a little undercooked, comparatively. In particular, the stuff I liked most about Fizban’s is missing from Bigby.

With Fizban’s I very much enjoyed the middle section of the book, going through each of the major type of dragon, brainstorming ideas on how to characterize them, the kind of plots to involve them in, the connections to other NPCs they’d have, and I live for that junk; even though it’s not producing much in the way of new or variant mechanics, it helps me with brainstorming and characterization. I like fluff.
What I especially enjoyed with the various tables is with almost every dragon they’d give you an option that either subverted the expected characterization of a dragon, or else lived up to that characterization in an unexpected way—a blue dragon with enough of a sense of honor and fair dealing he could actually be an ally or benefactor for a party, or a bronze dragon who takes their “for your own good” mentality to such a degree that they almost rule the communities in proximity to their lair like a tyrant.

With Bigby’s we didn’t get that, really—which I thought was very weird, since the opening chapter seemed to signpost that we’d get something similar to Fizban’s, but then the middle of the book is just various maps and a few different ideas on what giants would be there and why. I was hoping for some suggested characterizations for the various giants that drag them away from their otherwise kind of one-note personalities. Hill giants that aren’t cannibalistic fat idiots, frost giants that aren’t hyper-violent Vikings, stone giants that aren’t loopy artists, etc.

And like, the crunchier bits, the subclass, the magic items, the new monster statblocks, most of those I like, at least on a first reading.
It feels like I didn’t learn an awful lot about giants from the supposed book about giants that I couldn’t glean from their Monster Manual entries from a decade ago.

Tl;dr: Bigby’s kinda disappointed me, but I don’t know if that’s on me for expecting it to be closer to Fizban’s in format.

[KorvinStarmast]

Wow, this book seems like it flew under the radar.
Which I can actually kind of understand, unfortunately. I was really hoping this book would be like Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons, except for giants, but it feels just a little undercooked, comparatively. In particular, the stuff I liked most about Fizban’s is missing from Bigby.

With Fizban’s I very much enjoyed the middle section of the book, going through each of the major type of dragon, brainstorming ideas on how to characterize them, the kind of plots to involve them in, the connections to other NPCs they’d have, and I live for that junk; even though it’s not producing much in the way of new or variant mechanics, it helps me with brainstorming and characterization. I like fluff.
What I especially enjoyed with the various tables is with almost every dragon they’d give you an option that either subverted the expected characterization of a dragon, or else lived up to that characterization in an unexpected way—a blue dragon with enough of a sense of honor and fair dealing he could actually be an ally or benefactor for a party, or a bronze dragon who takes their “for your own good” mentality to such a degree that they almost rule the communities in proximity to their lair like a tyrant.

With Bigby’s we didn’t get that, really—which I thought was very weird, since the opening chapter seemed to signpost that we’d get something similar to Fizban’s, but then the middle of the book is just various maps and a few different ideas on what giants would be there and why. I was hoping for some suggested characterizations for the various giants that drag them away from their otherwise kind of one-note personalities. Hill giants that aren’t cannibalistic fat idiots, frost giants that aren’t hyper-violent Vikings, stone giants that aren’t loopy artists, etc.

And like, the crunchier bits, the subclass, the magic items, the new monster statblocks, most of those I like, at least on a first reading.
It feels like I didn’t learn an awful lot about giants from the supposed book about giants that I couldn’t glean from their Monster Manual entries from a decade ago.

Tl;dr: Bigby’s kinda disappointed me, but I don’t know if that’s on me for expecting it to be closer to Fizban’s in format.
Yes, they mailed it in. :smallmad:

[titi]

I do find it funny that you have to choose between Druidcraft or Thaumaturgy, as if having both would be too much :smallamused:

If I had to guess, this is in it more as a flavor help than utility

Kind of a "are your powers magical or natural?"

[Mongobear]

Ive played Giants Barb for several sessions in a mid-high level game. For melee damage, it's great, all that elemental damage applies to every attack, and you can change it to another type on the fly.

The stuff about Throwing your weapon though? An utter failure. Range is too short, and you can't apply Reckless to it. So if theyre more than 20 feet away, you either need Sharpshooter (an utter waste of a Feat on a Barbarian) or some other source of Advantage to off-set the range penalty. I tried using it a few times, realized the non-bo of Reckless, and never used it again, youre better off swapping out to a Bow or something if you gotta make ranged attacks.

I love the flavor of the rest of the features, but one of the main draws of being able to hurl your Greataxe around is a total fail mechanically.

[Blatant Beast]

As I am playing a rune Knight, some of the feats look like they overlap with runes from that class.

That was my impression from the Playtest Packet as well, which rubbed me the wrong way.

“No, we are WotC are not recycling our material. The Rune Knight’s Fire Rune is completely different from the Rune of Fire Feat, despite both Restraining your target.” 🤦

[stoutstien]

That was my impression from the Playtest Packet as well, which rubbed me the wrong way.

“No, we are WotC are not recycling our material. The Rune Knight’s Fire Rune is completely different from the Rune of Fire Feat, despite both Restraining your target.” 🤦

And neither of them have a darn thing to do with fire Giants or fire really so yea.

[Blatant Beast]

And neither of them have a darn thing to do with fire Giants or fire really so yea.

Runes suffer from a haphazard approach. 5e Runes first appeared as Magic item like things in modules.

Magic that was beyond the ability for PCs to master.

Then we get the Artificer class, which works quite well with the idea of Runic enhancement…but that linkage is never explored….except on a Fighter class that scribbles Runes.

Now we get Runic Feats.

Perhaps a unified Rune Magic system should have been considered when it became apparent that Storm Kings Thunder and Dungeon of the Mad Maze were going to have Runes play a large role.

Also, what does Bigby have to do with giants?

[stoutstien]

Runes suffer from a haphazard approach. 5e Runes first appeared as Magic item like things in modules.

Magic that was beyond the ability for PCs to master.

Then we get the Artificer class, which works quite well with the idea of Runic enhancement…but that linkage is never explored….except on a Fighter class that scribbles Runes.

Now we get Runic Feats.

Perhaps a unified Rune Magic system should have been considered when it became apparent that Storm Kings Thunder and Dungeon of the Mad Maze were going to have Runes play a large role.

Also, what does Bigby have to do with giants?

Eh. There's nothing good about any of the lore around Bigby so ignore it. Too much ancient Greek philosophy vibes for my taste.

[Millstone85]

Also, what does Bigby have to do with giants?I remember something about the spell Bigby's hand being a recreation of Bigby's worst experiences with giants, but it might have been a joke interpretation.

[Yakmala]

I've had a chance to play a Path of the Giants Barbarian for a few sessions now, having gotten permission from my DM to respec my Level 10 Goliath Rune Knight into this new subclass. My thoughts below.

1: I've played a lot of Barbarians. It may be my most played class overall. Path of the Giants is the most fun I've had with the Barbarian in a long time.

2: Mighty Impel is great! It is fun hurling enemies around and adds a nice extra damage boost in many cases. It's also great for repositioning party members. That being said:


Level 10 is where the fun really starts. While it's still a perfectly serviceable subclass from 3-9, if you are starting at Level 1, you are not going to get the full Path of the Giants experience for a while.
Mighty Impel is poorly written. By RAW, enemies only take damage from falling, not from impact, so you have to toss them up or at a diagonal if you want them to take extra damage. If you plan to play the class, talk to your DM about it, they'll likely let you do the throw damage on impact with a hard surface, or maybe even when impacting another creature.
This only works on medium or smaller creatures when you first get it, so your fun may vary depending on what you are up against.



3: Elemental Cleaver is a great damage boost, especially since it applies to all attacks with the chosen weapon that round, not just the first (an issue I have with Rune Knights). While the range is short, and you'll likely want to stick with melee for the most part, there are times where it's going to come in handy.

4: I highly suggest picking up Tavern Brawler with this subclass, as it will hilariously enhance your Elemental Cleaver shenanigans. As you are proficient with improvised weapons, you will not only be able to hurl them while adding your rage to them, but you'll be able to add your Elemental Cleaver damage to them as well and then have them return to your hand. So, you could, for example, pick up a tankard in a bar, set it on fire and hurl it at someone for 1d4+ strength bonus+rage bonus+1D6 elemental damage. Or, if your DM allows it, Smack an enemy with that flagon and then grapple them as a Bonus Action, then next turn, set them on fire and use them as an improvised weapon to smack someone else!

I also wanted to briefly mention some of the Feats:

Strike of the Giants gives mixed results depending on which one you pick. I chose Frost Strike with my Path of the Giants Barbarian. That means I could hit an enemy with an attack, reduce their speed to zero (on a failed Con save) until the start of my next turn, then use Mighty Impel as a Bonus Action to make them Prone, and with a speed of zero, they will not be able to stand on their next turn, giving everyone in melee range advantage to hit them.

Rune Shaper can lead to some great combos for certain subclasses! I recommend using it to pick up Armor of Agathys for an Abjuration Wizard or Goodberry for a Life Cleric.