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

[Dire Bare]

What is this in response to? I didn't quote your post, and the ideas you present here don't really relate to my post, which was a brief note on the impact of the label Goliath in regards to a newbie's ability to learn the game.

It sounds like you are talking about the challenges of game design here, but why?

Uh, my post was in response to your post that I quoted? Yes, you didn't quote me in that exchange originally . . . so? I suppose to put into other words, I disagree with your point.

If you don't care for the name "goliath", that's fine of course. But when you discuss your reasoning in a forum discussion, we're allowed to call out your reasoning as poor. All IMO, of course.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Plus honestly naming an entire race after a single creature is something they do a lot. I mean, y'know, Lamia, Pegasus and Medusa are all singulars who became a species. Goliaths are nothing new

And the Minotaur, the Chimera, the Sphynx, the Hydra, and Quetzalcouatl.

 

[Ganymede81]

Uh, my post was in response to your post that I quoted? Yes, you didn't quote me in that exchange originally . . . so? I suppose to put into other words, I disagree with your point.

If you don't care for the name "goliath", that's fine of course. But when you discuss your reasoning in a forum discussion, we're allowed to call out your reasoning as poor. All IMO, of course.

Yeah, but your post didn't even relate to the reasoning I presented.

I was talking about how using a name like Goliath doesn't really help newbies learn the game in any sort of substantial way. Your comment didn't really address that.

As I said, it seemed like you were talking about the challenges from a game-designer's perspective, but that doesn't relate to what I was talking about nor does it doesn't echo back to anything you talked about before. Why not elaborate?

 

[Dire Bare]

Yeah, but your post didn't even relate to the reasoning I presented.

I was talking about how using a name like Goliath doesn't really help newbies learn the game in any sort of substantial way. Your comment didn't really address that.

As I said, it seemed like you were talking about the challenges from a game-designer's perspective, but that doesn't relate to what I was talking about nor does it doesn't echo back to anything you talked about before. Why not elaborate?

I mirrored the language you used as a rhetorical device showing that I felt your point was a poor one, and at the same time to show disagreement with one of your earlier points. If I was unclear, or came across mean-spirited, I apologize, as that was not the intent.

In an attempt to be more clear:

I do think that using the name "goliath" is useful in giving a snapshot of what the race is all about. It isn't a criteria used in fantasy species naming in every instance, nor should it be necessarily, but it works really well here. It isn't the only reason why "goliath" works well, but it definitely is one of the reasons why I like the name. "Firbolg" doesn't improve upon this in any way, and there are other reasons (that I've shared) that I don't care for "firbolg" over "goliath".

But ultimately, this argument is getting silly. "Goliath" is a perfectly fine name that some folks will not care for, and that's fine. Change it in your campaign. It's not like any of us can go back in time to council WotC on the horrible, horrible decision they made to go with "goliath" over "firbolg" (or whatever other names they may or may not have been considering at the time).

 

[abirdcall]

Goliath is my favourite of the non-PHB races and I prefer it over a few of those. I don't care for Dragonborn, Tieflings, and the like. Half-orcs are okay I guess.

 

[Kobold Stew]

For me, the problem is the disconnect between the mechanics and the description. When a half-orc and Mountain dwarf are presented as innately more physically effective than a Goliath, the tall race comes up short.

Powerful build; sure, nice flavour, but it's a "ribbon" since for most characters carrying capacity is not an issue.

Stone's Endurance; to my eye, is written purely as a mechanical effect (flavoured with elemental power) rather than something ascribed to size/physical appearance. What if instead Stone's endurance allowed characters to sluff off one level of exhaustion/long rest? That at least to me suggests endurance.

Natural Athlete; again, a good attempt to improve the character's resistance to being grappled (and so appropriate for the race's size), but it seems to avoid the most natural things that might be offered: ability to use oversize weapons; ability to extend reach by 5' (perhaps with a "stretch" -- using your reaction), etc.

 

[Azzy]

My gripe with the Goliath is that it comes across as VinDieselCharacter—the Race!

As to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, YMMV.

 

[BookBarbarian]

My gripe with the Goliath is that it comes across as VinDieselCharacter—the Race!

As to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, YMMV.

I never would have thought of this. Now I might be cursed to think of it every time i play a Goliath!

 

[ChrisCarlson]

My gripe with the Goliath is that it comes across as VinDieselCharacter—the Race!

As to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, YMMV.

Now I just *gotta* play one! Like one with goggles of the night and a buncha knives...

Thanks for that!

 

[Iry]

I... what?
Apparently I activated a trap card.