D&D 5E Why does no one play Goliath?

[MechaPilot]

But there's already a game mechanic which represents being harder to kill: either a bonus to Con, or a direct bonus to Hit Points (such as Dwarves have).

There's also a few different casting systems in the game too. Why make Warlocks different from Wizards? Why make sorcerers different? And didn't we have an edition where a lot of the old-school fans complained about too many things being the same or similar? It's different because it is, and because people don't like similarity. If it was the same, people would just be complaining that the race is too much like the Dwarf or the Half-Orc.

 

[jrowland]

Wierd...2 threads pop up regarding something I am toying with...but I digress...

I am rolling up a new character (haven't settled on class yet), but right now I am favoring a Goliath. Why? Well I am thinking he is an outcast from his tribe...of cyclops...because he has two eyes, lmao! Thought I'd share. If "two-eyed-mutant-cyclops" isn't a good enough reason to play a Goliath, nothing is

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There's also a few different casting systems in the game too. Why make Warlocks different from Wizards? Why make sorcerers different?

The spellcasters each have distinct (in-game) methods of learning and powering their spells. While you could represent those all with the same mechanic - distinguishing them only by spell selection, for example - it's an equally valid model to give them different mechanics. It is just the case that D&D settings are mostly in worlds where wizard magic doesn't work like sorcerer magic or warlock magic. It's a setting-design decision.

If Goliaths exist, then they exist in a world where a Goliath is tough in a different way from how a Dwarf is tough, and that's difficult to conceptualize. It's not magic. Hit Points are just mass, and skill, and willpower, and other easily-understood physical interactions. It's not a valid model to represent the same thing in two different ways. It's sacrificing the Simulation for the sake of Game-ism, and that's why I will not play a Goliath or allow them in any game I run.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I view their racial ability as the ability to shrug off a specific attack, which is a bit different than HP because it is more specific. They also have this ability in addition to a Con boost, so it is separate from what HP represents in that regard.

So a Goliath that is maxed out in Con has the additional ability to shrug off a specific attack, once per rest. Conversely, even a feeble, old Goliath with a Con of 9 would still have the ability, although it wouldn't be quite as potent.

So although the ability interacts with HP, it's separate, and seems to serve a thematic purpose.

 

[The Human Target]

The spellcasters each have distinct (in-game) methods of learning and powering their spells. While you could represent those all with the same mechanic - distinguishing them only by spell selection, for example - it's an equally valid model to give them different mechanics. It is just the case that D&D settings are mostly in worlds where wizard magic doesn't work like sorcerer magic or warlock magic. It's a setting-design decision.

If Goliaths exist, then they exist in a world where a Goliath is tough in a different way from how a Dwarf is tough, and that's difficult to conceptualize. It's not magic. Hit Points are just mass, and skill, and willpower, and other easily-understood physical interactions. It's not a valid model to represent the same thing in two different ways. It's sacrificing the Simulation for the sake of Game-ism, and that's why I will not play a Goliath or allow them in any game I run.

That's utterly ridiculous.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I play a Goliath Barbarian (among my many other barbarians) I like how it adds a short rest mechanic to the Barbarian repertoire. If that's game-ism I don't really care. I am after all playing a game.

In fact I wish more races had active abilities. I find they are more fun to play than a bunch of always on abilities. I like that I get to choose when to use it. It's like I get to actively "Goliath" my way through a the pain. I wish I could "Dwarf" my way through a wall or "Elf" my way around a foe. I think it makes races feel more distinct than a few pluses and minus with or without darkvision.

All that being said, Goliath definitely suffers from some drawbacks, mainly Identity Crisis. I like playing D&D because I get to pretend to be a hero, like I've read about or watched in fiction, but I've not ever read about a Goliath in fiction before. I likely never will.

So Goliath really just fills the "Big, Tough Guy" archetype for me. I'm just as likely to re-skin the Goliath into a Half-Orge, Half-Giant, Half Troll, Natural Werebear or any other "biggish" race than to actually use it with the existing fluff.

To put it simply: If I tell some friends I'm playing an Elf or a Dwarf at my D&D game they'll have an idea of what that would be. If I say I'm playing a Goliath they'll look at me funny until I say "It's like a Half-Giant".

 

[Sunseeker]

Probably because few people include it in their games. They thematically fill the spot of barbarians from the mountains. I don't need a special race for that, it's not even that interesting of a background, humans that mated with rock giants or something something mountains and stone. Kinda steps on the dwarf's niche too. Mechanically, the half-orc is almost identical.

So, they're not bringing anything new to the table, and they're not really that creative, so I suspect that's why they don't see as much play.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I played a goliath paladin up to level 5. I can't speak for anyone else, but all the gamers I know choose a race because it fits their role-playing theme; rarely are mechanical features factored. And what is essentially a half ogre just isn't something people have on their list of archetypes they want to play. It's more of a one off race.

Funnily enough, I like the idea of playing a half ogre! (old dragonlance fan)

 

[SmokingSkull]

I don't know about the rest of you but I love playing them! Ever since I discovered them in 3.5 in Races of Stone they've been in my mind. It wasn't until 4th however that I got to play as one, been hooked since. I'm currently playing one and he's a lot of fun, the drawbacks aren't too bad cause I got companions who help me. But yes in official d&d lore there's only 2-3 notable Goliath characters so of course most people don't know or probably care about them.

I'm personally bored of half orcs and dwarves and the like, but being a giant stone man yes please! And as far as I've read there's at least 3 to 4 different origin stories I've read about the Goliath race as a whole. They're quite rare and exotic, moreso than Dragonborn and Tieflings I'd argue but that's just an opinion.

 

[Vicaring]

There is nothing mythic or legendary about a goliath. In mythology, Goliath was just a really big guy. A human guy.

Maybe. It depends on which of the equally orthodox and traditional interpretations of the word Nephilim that you subscribe to.

As for Goliath in the Bible, although orthodox hermeneutics would deduce that he is a gigantic man, more imaginative interpretations have occurred over the millennia, including the idea that he was descended from the wayward Nephilim, the "sons of God" who were "giants in the earth in those days."

I would dispute the labeling of one interpretation as being orthodox and the other as not. I would also dispute the titling of the Nephilim as the Sons of God. My defense is going to be fairly lengthy. You are warned.

In the bible, the book of Genesis, there is a story, where the Sons of God see the Daughters of Men and are attracted to them; their progeny are Nephilim, or Giants. These Nephilim are wicked bad crazy wicked, and God sees all their evil deeds and despairs of them and decides to kill them all. And then the flood. Yeah, that's right. God decided to single-handedly kill every last Nephilim on earth. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work, because later on the Hebrews enter into a Land of Giants after fleeing from Egypt, and even later David kills himself a giant named Goliath.

So, who are these Nephilim, exactly? There are two interpretations, both of them equally orthodox. The first, which is the view held by most contemporary churches, is that the Sons of God were the descendants of Seth and the Daughters of Men were the descendants of Cain. Their offspring, then, the Nephilim (Giants), just as Ovarwa says above, would have been entirely human.

The second interpretation is that the Sons of God were not human at all but were angels, also called the Watchers. And their offspring, the Nephilim (Giants), would not have been human, but rather a hybrid half-human half-angel.

There is no direct textual evidence for either of these interpretations within the bible itself. The bible makes it clear only that the Nephilim were the progeny of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men, and that they were Giants, and that they were entirely evil and the reason for the flood. And that's all. Assuming giants are simply really big people is the easy interpretation, given the lack of evidence for any other.

However, there are a couple of apocryphal texts, namely the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, that are unambiguous in stating that the Sons of God were angels.

Yeah, but those books aren't in the bible. So why should anybody pay attention to them? For exactly one reason: The Book of Enoch is itself quoted in the bible. It is, IIRC, the only extra-biblical book to be so quoted. Which means that the Apostle Jude, for one, believed it and took it to be true.

1st, there is no cool lore about them.

Goliath definitely suffers from some drawbacks, mainly Identity Crisis.

You know, maybe there isn't any "cool D&D lore" about Goliaths, but a race of creatures that are half-angel and all evil, that God himself decided to declare war on, well man that's about as cool as it comes.