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

[UngeheuerLich]

Right, but the poster was asking for the best feat for dealing damage. The +1 AC is a point in Dual Wielder’s favor over increasing Strength, but the +1 to hit is a point in Strength’s favor, and since they were asking for an offensive feat, I figured they would value the increased accuracy over the increased defense.

This benefit is dependent on the DM actually enforcing the one object interaction per turn limit, which in my experience is extremely rare. But, yes, if your DM does, it’s a meaningful point in favor of Dual Wielder.

Of course, if the character has an odd numbered Strength score, crusher/piercer/slasher is the better choice over either.

I always assume playing by the rules.
If you ignore parts of it, then of course the assessment is different.
You are right with the odd score.

+1AC was not my main point.
+1 to hit is a bit overrated if you ask me.
It is just a 1 in 20 chance to actually make a difference. As a battlemaster, who can chose to basically turn a miss into a hit anyway and who can chose to increase the damage on hits specifically loses less than someone who deals equal damage over all hits.
If you consider that the increased die will be multiplied on a crit, while the static +1 is not, you also reduce the loss.
Last but not least, besides being able to switch between more weapons, +1 AC might prevent you from dropping dead, so you could get more hits in. Against many lesser enemies, you will be attacked more oftwn than you attack yourself, so the +1 AC is worth relatively more than +1 attack bonus.
So overall, +1 to hit is not a clear winner. Even if you just count offense (if you play by the phb rules)

 

[Charlaquin]

I always assume playing by the rules.
If you ignore parts of it, then of course the assessment is different.

I find that the way the game is most typically played deviates from the rules as written in many ways. In this instance I opted to make no assumption about whether or not the rule in question was being enforced and leave it up to the poster to decide if it was a relevant factor for them or not.

You are right with the odd score.

+1AC was not my main point.
+1 to hit is a bit overrated if you ask me.
It is just a 1 in 20 chance to actually make a difference. As a battlemaster, who can chose to basically turn a miss into a hit anyway and who can chose to increase the damage on hits specifically loses less than someone who deals equal damage over all hits.
If you consider that the increased die will be multiplied on a crit, while the static +1 is not, you also reduce the loss.
Last but not least, besides being able to switch between more weapons, +1 AC might prevent you from dropping dead, so you could get more hits in. Against many lesser enemies, you will be attacked more oftwn than you attack yourself, so the +1 AC is worth relatively more than +1 attack bonus.

Different people evaluate +1 AC vs. +1 to hit differently. Since they asked for the best feat for damage, I assumed they would prioritize offense over defense. If you disagree that’s fine, but I was answering the question they asked.

So overall, +1 to hit is not a clear winner. Even if you just count offense (if you play by the phb rules)

Right, being able to draw both weapons in one turn is an offensive advantage in favor of Dual Wielder, if the DM is enforcing that restriction. Definitely something worth considering, if it’s a relevant factor at your table.

Ultimately though, this is all moot, as it seems the poster’s character doesn’t have two Light weapons to dual-wield with, so Dual Wielder would be a much greater damage increase than +2 strength. Unless they are operating under a house rule of some sort, in which case they’re already receiving the primary benefit of the Feat and would probably be better off increasing Strength.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I find that the way the game is most typically played deviates from the rules as written in many ways. In this instance I opted to make no assumption about whether or not the rule in question was being enforced and leave it up to the poster to decide if it was a relevant factor for them or not.

Different people evaluate +1 AC vs. +1 to hit differently. Since they asked for the best feat for damage, I assumed they would prioritize offense over defense. If you disagree that’s fine, but I was answering the question they asked.

Right, being able to draw both weapons in one turn is an offensive advantage in favor of Dual Wielder, if the DM is enforcing that restriction. Definitely something worth considering, if it’s a relevant factor at your table.

Ultimately though, this is all moot, as it seems the poster’s character doesn’t have two Light weapons to dual-wield with, so Dual Wielder would be a much greater damage increase than +2 strength. Unless they are operating under a house rule of some sort, in which case they’re already receiving the primary benefit of the Feat and would probably be better off increasing Strength.

I agree with your last part.
I still don't agree that you should assume not "enforcing" a rule.
If a rule exists, you should accept it, unless it explicitely taken out.
Otherwise we can't assume that this particular group actually rolls to hit... (I know I am exaggerating here).
Under the assumption, that the rule about drawing weapons is waved, I see +2 str as the stronger option too.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with your last part.
I still don't agree that you should assume not "enforcing" a rule.
If a rule exists, you should accept it, unless it explicitely taken out.
Otherwise we can't assume that this particular group actually rolls to hit... (I know I am exaggerating here).
Under the assumption, that the rule about drawing weapons is waved, I see +2 str as the stronger option too.

I don’t assume one way or the other. I discuss the other factors and let the other person factor the weapon drawing part or not as makes sense at their table.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don’t assume one way or the other. I discuss the other factors and let the other person factor the weapon drawing part or not as makes sense at their table.

Why should you not assume that all rules are in place?

 

[Charlaquin]

Why should you not assume that all rules are in place?

Because in my experience, very few people run the game according to the rules

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've DMed for 30+ and played with another 20+ different people over the past year and no one even considers rolling up a Goliath. Before I inject my own preconceptions/prejudices, I'd like to hear why others think they are so rarely played.

This goes back quite a few years. I figure noone plays them because:

1. They're not in the core book. A player is only likely to see them if they read a guide on how to play... a fighter?
2. They smell of cheese in 3e. (There was a time when the 3e half-ogre was popular. It wasn't Large, so not too powerful to play, but it was just short of Large, and got extra reach. This was when spiked chains were ridiculously popular.)
3. They have unfamiliar lore. I saw one played in a Dark Sun campaign, but that's only because (in 4e) half-giants were given the goliath rules rather than creating a new set of rules for them. Dark Sun actually has a place for half-giants, which you won't see in other settings where there's no place for them. They didn't strike me as cheesy in 4e.

 

[Eltab]

In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, Goliaths as a PC race appear in Rime of the Frostmaiden (tucked into the Creatures appendix).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, Goliaths as a PC race appear in Rime of the Frostmaiden (tucked into the Creatures appendix).

They are also tied into the plot, with villages they can come from, NPCs they can be related to, and problems which are personal.

Which really answers the question. If you want PCs to play goliaths, or any of the many other PC lineages beyond the PHB, you need to tie them into the story/setting.

 

[Stormonu]

Playing in Rime of the Frostmaiden and I'm trying out something a little different - a Goliath hexblade. I like the Goliath race, not so sure I'm sold on Hexblade (attempting to avoid Eldritch Blast, but it is hard - the spell's too good).