Would a Goliath Path of the Totem Barbarian be able to dual wield great swords?

[Wolfsraine]

According to the level 6 bear feature, carrying and lift capacity is doubled. Coupled with: Powerful Build. You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift.

If we look at those 2 features. It should stand to reason that a greatsword could possible be wielded in a similar manner to a longsword in the hands of one of these titans.

Seems pretty awesome actually lol.

[Madfellow]

Not greatswords, no, but longswords would be fair game. :smallsmile:

[MadBear]

via RAW, no. He couldn't.

With that said, it'd be something that I'd probably allow in my game, assuming that you took the dual wielding feat, and still only did d8 damage per hit. Otherwise, you're taking abilities that don't grant additional combat advantages and giving yourself additional combat advantages.

[Wolfsraine]

via RAW, no. He couldn't.

With that said, it'd be something that I'd probably allow in my game, assuming that you took the dual wielding feat, and still only did d8 damage per hit. Otherwise, you're taking abilities that don't grant additional combat advantages and giving yourself additional combat advantages.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect them to each do the 2d6 as normal. Is there a damage chart anymore for weapon damage based on size? However, I would imagine great weapon master would apply, since they are heavy weapons.

[MadBear]

Yeah, I wouldn't expect them to each do the 2d6 as normal. Is there a damage chart anymore for weapon damage based on size? However, I would imagine great weapon master would apply, since they are heavy weapons.

There isn't a weapons chart to my knowledge.

As too greater weapon master, I'd be curious how well it would/could work. I'm always hesitant to grant combat advantages to an ability that didn't give them in the first place. With that said, half the feat would be useless (you're already swinging twice a round with your bonus action), and the other lowers your hit chance. On the whole, it's probably a buff, but one that comes at the cost of 2 feats. Definitely not RAW, but something you could talk out with the DM as being reasonable for the character.

[Ralanr]

As cool as it sounds, probably not. Not RAW supported and in real life (not really something that always applies but I wanted to bring it up) the balance in using those weapons would be messed up.

If you actually were large size, then it's a different story.

[EvanescentHero]

There are no different weapon sizes for players anymore, only the restriction on Small characters not using heavy weapons.

My gut reaction to this as a DM is no, and if they're just going to do a d8 of damage anyway, there's no reason not to just use longswords and take the dual-wielding feat.

[AmbientRaven]

I would say no, as, although you can carry heavier weight, that doesnt mean you would be proficient in wielding swords that are 1-2 feet longer each than a longsword.

I would maybe make a house ruled Featt hat allows you to roll dual longswords using the 1d10 damage, BUT you needed to take dual wielding feat first (showing development of skill with dualing long bladeS)

[Submortimer]

Homebrew feat from someone else I'm using in my game

Brutal Grip
- +1 Str
- When wielding a versatile weapon in one hand, you may use the two-handed damage die.
- You may wield a 2 handed weapon in one hand. All attacks made with this weapon while wielding it this way are made at a -2 penalty.

So far, hasn't been unbalanced. I've mostly been using it to d10 my longsword, but at some point I'll start 1 handing a greatsword.

[Easy_Lee]

The reason why greatswords do so much damage is because you put two hands on them and they have extra areas to grip for leverage. It doesn't have as much to do with strength as you might think; real two-handed swords weigh less than 15 pounds, because any more would make it slow and tiring to use.

Point being, I could see a goliath using bigger weapons, and those weapons dealing more damage (makes sense, though it would be imbalanced), but one does not dual wield greatswords. It would be awkward to do so, and one would be better off with a scaled-up longsword or scimitar.

[Ralanr]

Homebrew feat from someone else I'm using in my game

Brutal Grip
- +1 Str
- When wielding a versatile weapon in one hand, you may use the two-handed damage die.
- You may wield a 2 handed weapon in one hand. All attacks made with this weapon while wielding it this way are made at a -2 penalty.

So far, hasn't been unbalanced. I've mostly been using it to d10 my longsword, but at some point I'll start 1 handing a greatsword.

Huh...well I'll be damned. That's my feat.

[Theodoxus]

Huh...well I'll be damned. That's my feat.

Nifty. Although rather than a flat -2 (which 5th tries really hard to avoid) I'd make it disadvantage. The potential ways of gaining advantage (and thus offset the penalty) are numerous, so an industrious player wanting to capitalize on this feat would be able to do so - but it's not automatic, and brings an inherent risk vs reward. The other option would be to remove both the penalty and the +1 Str bonus.

[Ralanr]

Nifty. Although rather than a flat -2 (which 5th tries really hard to avoid) I'd make it disadvantage. The potential ways of gaining advantage (and thus offset the penalty) are numerous, so an industrious player wanting to capitalize on this feat would be able to do so - but it's not automatic, and brings an inherent risk vs reward. The other option would be to remove both the penalty and the +1 Str bonus.

Eh, originally it wasn't meant to allow two handed weapons with one handed grip. But the feat felt weak with just the plus one and the other ability. Giving disadvantage feels like kicking them down though, making the only way you could hit them is if you were a barbarian using reckless attack all the time

[MustacheFart]

Dnd is meant to be fun. I would check that level of realism at the door and allow it with some balancing.

[Wolfsraine]

Eh, originally it wasn't meant to allow two handed weapons with one handed grip. But the feat felt weak with just the plus one and the other ability. Giving disadvantage feels like kicking them down though, making the only way you could hit them is if you were a barbarian using reckless attack all the time

I would like to know what kind of barbarian isn't using reckless attack all the time anyway.

Barbarian rule #1: Reckless attack always. Always. No exceptions.

[Ralanr]

I would like to know what kind of barbarian isn't using reckless attack all the time anyway.

Barbarian rule #1: Reckless attack always. Always. No exceptions.

My barbarian for one. Usually because he's surrounded by more than ten enemies and didn't have a healer backing him up.

I do end up playing more cautiously than I should.

[MustacheFart]

I would like to know what kind of barbarian isn't using reckless attack all the time anyway.

Stereotypical Barbarian rule #1: Reckless attack always. Always. No exceptions.

A non-stereotypical one?

Btw fixed it for you.


P.S. Conan the Quintessential Barbarian did not always attack recklessly.

[MadBear]

Honestly for balance sake all that needs to change is the fluff behind the already existing rules, now that I think about it.

Pre-Dual Wielding feat- Goliath's can use one-handed weapons when they dual wield, but must use the small weapon damage die and abide their restrictions (d6)

Dual Wield feat- Goliaths can dual wield with great weapons but do so at the one-handed damage die, and must abide their restrictions(d8)

This keeps the balance of the class, but allows you to do what you wanted. Thematically you're character is running around with 2 giant swords, but the damage is the same as someone using longswords.

[MustacheFart]

I'm just not seeing how OP it would be even if you allowed them to use the greatswords damage. It's only 2.5 more damage at the cost of a feat (dual wielder presumably). Since martial characters fall behind casters eventually anyway I don't think it's a huge deal.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm just not seeing how OP it would be even if you allowed them to use the greatswords damage. It's only 2.5 more damage at the cost of a feat (dual wielder presumably). Since martial characters fall behind casters eventually anyway I don't think it's a huge deal.

Because it's mathematically superior to other weapon options. This not only makes the game less diverse, but makes those who don't want to dual wield resent dual wield's superiority.

In addition, casters never surpass martials for at-will damage. The best caster at-will ability, Agonizing Eldritch Blast, merely keeps up with a rogue's DPR and is beaten by fighters and barbarians. For normal casters, their strongest at-will is a cantrip, 4d6 to 4d10 damage which may add casting modifier one time and only targets one foe (two adjacent for acid splash). Casters also tend to have weaker defenses than martials, so that's another disadvantage.

In short, casters don't surpass martials in regards to at-will damage, and we shouldn't use casters as a basis for balancing melee damage, but should instead balance melee damage against other melee damage options.

[MustacheFart]

Because it's mathematically superior to other weapon options. This not only makes the game less diverse, but makes those who don't want to dual wield resent dual wield's superiority.

We're talking about a specific race here in a non-pub supplement + a feat. How is that affecting diversity or all other weapon options? I could make a half-Orc barbarian and be better at gritting then all other mundane options. Are you saying that should be taken away from Hal-orcs? Does that extra die of crit damage make them superior to other options?

Also I believe the dual-wielding hand crossbow with feats is still currently the most superior weapon option regarding damage (the basis of this debate). Yet I have not seen everyone rolling with hand crossbows. If that's so superior why has it not affected the "diversity"?

Also what if someone wants to play a dex-build like a rogue? They're not going to pick Goliath so they can't dual wield greatswords anyway. It's a fringe combination.



In addition, casters never surpass martials for at-will damage. The best caster at-will ability, Agonizing Eldritch Blast, merely keeps up with a rogue's DPR and is beaten by fighters and barbarians. For normal casters, their strongest at-will is a cantrip, 4d6 to 4d10 damage which may add casting modifier one time and only targets one foe (two adjacent for acid splash). Casters also tend to have weaker defenses than martials, so that's another disadvantage.

In short, casters don't surpass martials in regards to at-will damage, and we shouldn't use casters as a basis for balancing melee damage, but should instead balance melee damage against other melee damage options.

Who the heck is talking about at-will damage? That's an unbalanced argument right there for the sheer fact that most fights don't last long enough to go into the "cantrip only because I'm out of spells" rounds. When casters can walk into rooms repeatedly and nuke the area to end an encounter that is going to be compared to what martial characters bring.

Comparing martial characters to the cantrip "at-will" damage of casters is a bogus comparison offering little synergy with the reality of actual gameplay. However comparing them straight up has been done over and over for many editions for a reason. There's a thread on this forum talking about just that. I believe it was the "How does 5th Ed hold up at later levels" thread.

So I maintain if someone wants to play a Goliath dual-wielder taking the dual wielder feat then that's enough of a fringe case that I see little issue with giving them 2.5 more damage.

[holygroundj]

just like any normal person can carry a sword, The bear totem feature combined with goliaths allow you to carry more weight, but does not, raw, give you unique proficiency, and this is speaking as a player who is a bear totem goliath.

It's the same thing as not having prof wielding monster weapons. You'd physically be able to do it, but not well without a feature granting you the prof.

As for not attacking recklessly, I can see it if you're not a bearbarian. Pack tactics is cool, but even granting advantage, having resistance to pretty much everything is why i don't need a healer. At level 8, full con, I had 101 hit points. Average attacks, after resistance, were doing 4-8 per. One round I took 7 attacks and only lost 20 hp. Natural AC is 17, no shield. I just wish that dual wielding was more competetive on its own vs a GS.

[Shining Wrath]

The reason why greatswords do so much damage is because you put two hands on them and they have extra areas to grip for leverage. It doesn't have as much to do with strength as you might think; real two-handed swords weigh less than 15 pounds, because any more would make it slow and tiring to use.

Point being, I could see a goliath using bigger weapons, and those weapons dealing more damage (makes sense, though it would be imbalanced), but one does not dual wield greatswords. It would be awkward to do so, and one would be better off with a scaled-up longsword or scimitar.

It's very much like hitting flies in baseball practice - you can only generate so much power with one hand, to reach very far into the outfield most folks need two hands. It's not the strength of the swing, it's the torque as you flip your wrists.

[ChubbyRain]

It's very much like hitting flies in baseball practice - you can only generate so much power with one hand, to reach very far into the outfield most folks need two hands. It's not the strength of the swing, it's the torque as you flip your wrists.

The counter point is this is a fantasy game.

A Goliath very well could one hand a baseball bat and hit the ball out of the park.

Because when you have "a wizard did it" you can (and should!) have "she is just that damn good".

This is a core tenant of balance and without it out don't have balance within a game. 5e is not balanced because they do not adhere to this basic principal.