Hill Giant

Wait a second before you scratch you're head in confusion, yes a hill giant, yes there technically chaotic evil but I feel like they can be chaotic neautral who have really bad tempers lol so this is my take

AC - 13 (natural armour)

Racial stats
Strength +2
Dexterity -3
Constitution +1
Intelligence -4
Wisdom - 3
Charisma - 3

No 3d6 club or whatever just a 1d8 club

Slow: An opponents size adds to its AC, large is 1, medium is 2 and small is 3, the opponent can do a atheletics/acrobatics check at the start of its turn which adds 1 to its AC on a pass, -1 on a fail

Short fuse: Hill Giants have short fuses, if a opponent is missed by the giant twice in a row or missed after a athletic/acrobatic check then the giant must pass a 1d20 rage check, if the check is lower then 10 then the giant will not rage, 11 and up it will become enraged

Enraged: The hill giant attacks twice on its next turn (rolls three d20's plus proficiency to hit and counts the two lowest), the next turn after being enraged the giant must roll another d20 rage check, if not enraged he only attacks once with disadvantage, on a fail rage check, you roll 1d4, 1 is knock yourself prone dealing 1d4 damage, 2 is knock the closest ally prone dealing 1d4 damage, 3 is miss everyone, 4 knock you're enemy prone dealing 1d4 damage, if no ally's two is a miss

Dumb dumb: You have disadvantage on all checks except strength

Be as critical as you want on this race, if you have ideas or things that should be changed or added or taken out then go ahead, this is what this discussion is about, balance in the force

Okay I posted this with like 5 hours sleep from the night before and went a little overboard, changing the constitution and strength to way less to strength +2 instead of +4 and constitution to +1 instead of +3

I don't have access to a DMG until Monday to read up on the official recommendations for custom races, so I'll try to restrict my commentary to non-balance concerns until Monday. For now here's the first thoughts:

Very first thought, there's a lot this race has to it...and most of it is negative.

I would never play this race, the race options basically tell you that you must be a barbarian, and you must only hit things with your club. You're so laughably bad at everything else, by the penalties disadvantages, that you wouldn't even want to try. In addition, the abilities are all very complex, requiring tracking and constant checks. Adding this character to a game feels like it would just slow it down, and make the player's like more complicated for no pay off.

Also, nothing about the race is really exciting. Most of the abilities (except Enrage) are disadvantages, but abilities are where races get cool things that make you feel unique. Dwarves know lots about stonework, and tiefling's get minor magical powers. The hill giant gets drawbacks... ick!

I think, when approaching a race, the first thing to do is ask 'what makes this race unique and desirable to play?' Come up with an ability that reflects that, then add stuff around it to bring it into balance. That said, some thoughts on the individual bits:
Changing every attribute seems really overboard. Also stat penalties seem out of line with 5e. I can't think of a single official race with a penalty. The design attitude is represent the character's strengths with bonuses, and weaknesses with zeroes.
You can flip this into an attack penalty against large, medium and small creatures (-1, -2, -3) as that's equivalent to an AC boost, but doesn't require your opponent to do anything except tell you their size. Also, I'd remove the start of turn check, as adding excessive checks to the game slows it down (imagine this player gets into a battle against 12 goblins, that's 12 acrobatics checks every turn). It also only serves to make the hill giant worse.
This could be the base for an interesting 'safety' against missing, which could be a cool positive effect. As it is, you need to track to see if you miss twice in a row. Also, there's no way for the player to 'build' their character to make it more likely to trigger on a miss, to have a variable fuse. So I suggest this:

Short Fused: At the end of your turn, if you missed with an attack, you might become Enraged. Make a Wisdom save with a DC of 15. If you fail, you become Enraged next turn.
This functions similar to the old Barbarian rage class feature from 3.5, and again has a little too much going on in it, and is more drawbacks than it is exciting. I would suggest making it a one turn bonus, the rage is brief, but with a restriction still. You also don't need rules for attacking twice (most combat classes gain second attacks at level 5 or 6). Something like this:

Enraged: While Enraged you must attack a creature on your turn, and may only attack one creature. If a creature you missed on a previous turn could be attacked, you must attack them. When you attack, you have Advantage, and deal 1d4 extra damage. If you miss an Attack you are automatically Enraged next turn.
This is a huge disadvantage. But this is the kind of ability you could use to represent the weakness of mental abilities instead of stat penalties.

I feel like the negative points are due to the character overall, there has to be a penalty on its INT and DEX, it's a slow lumber giant which is incredibly stupid, it's been brought up with very little speech, what it lacks in stats it gains in features which I feel like most races don't have to a point

A change could be -1 to DEX and INT but the two and one in STR and CON plus you're lowest score must go into intelligence and you're second lowest go into dexterity, shoe horning it so you can't have a 18 INT/DEX hill giant lol

I understand the short fused issues with the dice rolls and that, I think the enraged could turn into a buff somewhat giving +2 to damage but disadvantage to attack rolls

Hill Giants could be any of the fighting styles, a monk hill giant would be great lol obviously not you're typical monk tho but yes barbarians or fighters mostly, the other giants could fill the other slots for classes tho but obviously no rouge lol

I really like the disadvantage to everything but strength, will a hill giant know about history, very doubt full, they live in secluded areas (I could put up the background of the hill giant but I think it's against the rules here so I won't) but anyway there literally just big stupid cave people with the brains of a child

I guess everything in 5e is very simple and a lot of moving parts just doesn't fit into it but this is what this discussion is about

Note: on mobile so it's hard to reply to everything in you're post

A quote from Mike Mearls, lead designer of 5e: "In terms of bigger picture design, we wanted to drive home the concept that in a tabletop RPG there are no limits. Anyone can try anything. Certain characters and classes are better at some tasks, but overall your imagination and ability to improvise trump the rules."

This design philosophy is why classes don't tend to have penalties (except the Drow - and that penalty is balanced by a HUGE series of benefits). Having an ability penalty is a soft way of saying "this race can't be a class that uses this ability as a primary ability" - no mages are hill giants. That may sound find by your vision of hill giant lore, but from a game and player perspective, it's an unwelcome restraint that goes against 5e design philosophy. Instead of sticks and disincentives, think of putting up more carrots and incentives to encourage players to play the race in the way they 'typically' are, without prohibiting players from exploring and pushing boundaries.

That's my two-cents. It's your race, but I'm 100% confident no player would ever choose it. At which point, why bother making a race - you might as well just make it a monster stat block to use as a GM.

Here are some homebrew 'giant like' races to consider for inspiration and as examples:
Half-Giant (this includes a Hill Giant lineage)
Ogrillon (this one has a 'rage' ability that is a weaker version of Barbarian rage)

Orgrillion is like mine but without the disadvantages and without full orge I understand the need not to have disadvantages but yeah I'll happily go with orgrillion, will everyone be fine with me just saying its a full orge instead and take the human stats

Given the stats I rolled (one of them being a 7) my first thought was a dumb brute. I'm now considering a 0-level (future barbarian) Orgillon. Possibly orc-kin.

The only aspect of Ogrillion that gives me pause is the extra +1 from the sub race choice. Only one race has a net +4 (mountain dwarf) and the majority of the other race features of the mountain dwarf are rudundant with melee classes (which are the classes dwarves are best at). Thus, I'd recommend removing that extra attribute bonus, but otherwise it looks good to me.

That's a gut reaction, again I don't have the dmg until Monday to check the official guidelines.

What do you need I'll happily write them up

Race thief lol but yeah if you wanna be a orge then sure, the stats I rolled really are too high for a plausible stupid orge lol

I think it's a whole section, but the part about creating races.

DMG pages 285-286, I believe.

He said he wouldn't be able to check till later

But yeah there's not really any rules except don't make it stat wise a turn off for people and not op that it's everyone's first choice

Ahh, I had hoped for more detailed guidelines. In that case, my concern about the extra +1 stands.

Re: Future barbarian plans -- It's worth noting that he Orgillion rage is strictly worse than Barbarian rage. So if you went Barbarian, the cool racial rage feature probably wouldn't get used (only when you've run out of daily rages). It's like having an extra 0.5 rage uses, true, but you might find the race to be more exciting as anything other than a Barbarian. Just a thought.

The plus one to intelligence or dexterity so that can be just voided, I don't think myself or jabes would have an issue with losing a plus one stat