DnD Video About Upcoming Path of Giants Barbarian

[Boverk]

Path of Giants Barbarian (https://youtu.be/f15C3UIeKBY)

It sounds very similar to the UA. I'm here for the thrown Great-Axes(and enemies)

[Oramac]

I'm here for the thrown Great-Axes(and enemies)

I do love the sound of that! Sadly, it's in a book in which I have very little interest. Not the least being the new higher price.

[Psyren]

I'm just glad Fighters don't have a monopoly on size-changing martials anymore.

I also love that they're leaning into Giants' elemental connections.

But I will never not be disappointed that the dino druid got axed.

[GooeyChewie]

If the Dino Druid were still in the book, I would be tempted to buy it. As is, I’m not interested enough in the Barbarian to buy a book that otherwise does not particularly interest me. Especially not for something I doubt I’d still be using once the 2024 books come out.

[Psyren]

I'm here for the thrown Great-Axes(and enemies)

Apparently, throwing allies made it to the final version too. Spammable martial Vortex Warp sounds pretty neat.


If the Dino Druid were still in the book, I would be tempted to buy it. As is, I’m not interested enough in the Barbarian to buy a book that otherwise does not particularly interest me. Especially not for something I doubt I’d still be using once the 2024 books come out.

Assuming you need to be raging for the utility this subclass offers I could see the new Barbarian being a nice fit for it. With rage lasting 10 minutes now, you'll be able to toss your allies around for a while after combat ends while also getting a bonus to your sneaking ability. And that's assuming they don't surprise us next iteration like they did with the Rogue.

[Boverk]

New Magic Items Video (https://youtu.be/3TE2ovw6c6g)

New Feats and Backgrounds Video (https://youtu.be/QTottqtsxOw)

[Boverk]

Another video, this one with more details on the new feats (https://youtu.be/NNgFb2hMCU4)

[Boverk]

It looks like they've expanded on the feats from the UA, and they explicitly state that everything in this book is compatible with the 2024 Player's Handbook.

[Amechra]

Could someone please give those of us in the audience with hearing problems the cliff notes version of what's in the videos? I'm curious, but videos are a huge pain to get any actual information out of.

[Boverk]

I can't watch them again right now, but I can give you a rough summary real quick (from memory, so I apologize if anything is incomplete)


Items - Giant themed items, some that do the same thing as the rune feats from the playtest document, one that was used in the Giant vs. Dragon wars to address the flying problem... I don't remember there being anything TOO exciting, but more options is typically better
Path of the Giant Barbarian - didn't hear any actual numbers, but it seems to be the same as the UA version. Grow large when rage, change a weapon to elemental damage and give it the thrown and returning properties, add rage damage bonus to thrown weapons, pick up and move allies or throw foes, grow huge when rage
Feats - they seemed to have expanded on the ones from the UA. Several seem to require a feat which you can get via background as a pre-requisite, but new ways to pick up certain spells and new ways to use bonus actions is nice


The Unearthed Arcana PDF (https://media.wizards.com/2022/dnd/downloads/UA2022-drjwf73f8n.pdf)

[Psyren]

More detail on the feats:


There are two first level feats: A rune-themed one that adds a spell to your spell list and gives you a free casting per day, and a giant-themed one that has you pick a heritage and gain a special attack PB/LR. Both are accessible via the associated background, but you can instead qualify for the former if you have the Spellcasting feature and/or the latter if you have proficiency with a martial weapon. The latter can also be taken multiple times if you want to combine giant heritages/techniques.

The second one is then a prereq for a slew of half-feats, one per heritage (e.g. Cloud, Fire, Frost, Storm, Stone, Hill.) These will be available at 4+ similar to recent feats such as Dragonlance and the UA. For the most part these appear to grant you extra things you can do with your bonus action or reaction.

So essentially what this tells us is that (a) light versions of feat chains are continuing to be a thing going into 5.5e, and (b) they are continuing the UA design philosophy of all level 4 feats being half-feats.

One line I thought was interesting from the video was their philosophy on reaction attacks. Makenzie: "We like reaction attacks because they reward you for paying attention during combat, and allow you to feel engaged even when it's not your turn." (She then proceeded to hold out her hand in an attacking motion and say "suck it!")

[Boverk]

I liked Mackenzie's energy in these videos

[Oramac]

One line I thought was interesting from the video was their philosophy on reaction attacks. Makenzie: "We like reaction attacks because they reward you for paying attention during combat, and allow you to feel engaged even when it's not your turn." (She then proceeded to hold out her hand in an attacking motion and say "suck it!")

I have disagreed with WOTC on many things recently, but this I completely agree with.

[Amechra]

Thank you kindly, folks!

[Gignere]

One line I thought was interesting from the video was their philosophy on reaction attacks. Makenzie: "We like reaction attacks because they reward you for paying attention during combat, and allow you to feel engaged even when it's not your turn." (She then proceeded to hold out her hand in an attacking motion and say "suck it!")

I totally agree with this, playing a Bladesinger as a front line melee with shield, silvery barbs, absorb elements and counter spell you better believe I am paying attention even when it isn’t my turn.

[Damon_Tor]

This subclass seems like a huge sleeper: the ability to carry a large-sized weapon (looted from a minotaur or ogre or whatever) and then use it when you're raging seems like it could be pretty strong, especially since the ability to change the damage type of the weapon offsets the need for a magic weapon.

[Boverk]

This subclass seems like a huge sleeper: the ability to carry a large-sized weapon (looted from a minotaur or ogre or whatever) and then use it when you're raging seems like it could be pretty strong, especially since the ability to change the damage type of the weapon offsets the need for a magic weapon.

I think this works. It doesn't work for Enlarge/Reduce because you grow one size category, but for Giant Barbarian and Rune Knight, you just grow to that size. Since the weapon is already large, it wouldn't grow?

you could always chuck it in the air, magical girl transformation, catch it, the catchy one-liner

[Polyphemus]

I know it’s a small thing, entirely for flavor, and some might even argue it wastes valuable page space, but I really hope the backgrounds in this include the full tables for Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.
The last couple books with new Backgrounds haven’t, (hell, the Spelljammer books neglected the tables entirely) so I’m not super hopeful, but it honestly really bums me out for them to skimp out on such a quick and easy source of inspiration and ideas when you’re brainstorming how to play a character with a certain Background.
And to me it doesn’t count if there’s just like one sentence amounting to “uhhh, use the tables from the Guild Artisan background for the Rune Carver, idk”

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not really surprised that 'runes' are just spells, but I'm still disappointed. Just happy we're finally getting new content.

[Damon_Tor]

I think this works. It doesn't work for Enlarge/Reduce because you grow one size category, but for Giant Barbarian and Rune Knight, you just grow to that size. Since the weapon is already large, it wouldn't grow?

you could always chuck it in the air, magical girl transformation, catch it, the catchy one-liner

Well both rune knight and giant barb say that objects you're wearing change size with you, while enlarge/reduce says that whatever you're wearing OR HOLDING changes size (with specific instructions on how that changes the damage die of any weapons). So there shouldn't be any special nonsense to make this work.

[Boverk]

I know it’s a small thing, entirely for flavor, and some might even argue it wastes valuable page space, but I really hope the backgrounds in this include the full tables for Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.
The last couple books with new Backgrounds haven’t, (hell, the Spelljammer books neglected the tables entirely) so I’m not super hopeful, but it honestly really bums me out for them to skimp out on such a quick and easy source of inspiration and ideas when you’re brainstorming how to play a character with a certain Background.
And to me it doesn’t count if there’s just like one sentence amounting to “uhhh, use the tables from the Guild Artisan background for the Rune Carver, idk”

I definitely don't consider flavor to be a waste of space. It can be helpful for newcomers, or give veterans a nice starting point. I wish they'd do more flavor and examples in the new OneDnD stuff.

Like several pages of example encounters using actions, movement, bonus actions. A level 1 and level 5 example build for each class with a small backstory attached for flavor, things like that.

[Psyren]

I'm all for BIFTs but they don't need to accompany every new background; just have a comprehensive listing in the PHB and have any new backgrounds point there.

[stoutstien]

This subclass seems like a huge sleeper: the ability to carry a large-sized weapon (looted from a minotaur or ogre or whatever) and then use it when you're raging seems like it could be pretty strong, especially since the ability to change the damage type of the weapon offsets the need for a magic weapon.

To this day I've yet to figure out how people take a out of context paragraph in the section about calculating the damage of a created NPC block and think it should apply unilaterally to PCs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of wielding oversized weapons but just do it right rather than trying to Frankenstein it.

[Zhorn]

To this day I've yet to figure out how people take a out of context paragraph in the section about calculating the damage of a created NPC block and think it should apply unilaterally to PCs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of wielding oversized weapons but just do it right rather than trying to Frankenstein it.
Just to clarify, which paragraph are you saying is taken out of context?
DMG p277; Step 11, "Base the Damage on the Weapon" looks pretty simple and not much of a Frankenstein

Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.

A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.
Seems more like a natural extrapolation of the rules PCs use regarding Small sized characters and weapons with the Heavy property.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just to clarify, which paragraph are you saying is taken out of context?
DMG p277; Step 11, "Base the Damage on the Weapon" looks pretty simple and not much of a Frankenstein

Seems more like a natural extrapolation of the rules PCs use regarding Small sized characters and weapons with the Heavy property.

The context being that this is guidance for creating monsters. And monsters and PCs don't necessarily share creation rules. And, like everything in the DMG, its a suggestion, not a rule (unless the DM affirmatively accepts it as rule).

I'd guess the Frankenstein aspect is in trying to jigger it into "working" for a PC by introspecting into the exact wording of abilities and using small differences in text to end up in different places mechanically.

--as to the main topic... Why do they have to use videos with no transcript? That's just annoying to find anything in.

[stoutstien]

Just to clarify, which paragraph are you saying is taken out of context?
DMG p277; Step 11, "Base the Damage on the Weapon" looks pretty simple and not much of a Frankenstein

Seems more like a natural extrapolation of the rules PCs use regarding Small sized characters and weapons with the Heavy property.

It's under :
Creating a monster
Creating quick monster stats
Step 11. Damage -based the damage based on weapons
A single paragraph regarding adjusting big monsters to line up manufactured weapons with natural weapons to keep the CR chart in the beginning of the section useful.

Nothing there has anything to do with PCs.

[Damon_Tor]

To this day I've yet to figure out how people take a out of context paragraph in the section about calculating the damage of a created NPC block and think it should apply unilaterally to PCs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of wielding oversized weapons but just do it right rather than trying to Frankenstein it.

Well it seems like Zhorn has me covered here. Rules for oversized weapons don't require any jank or guesswork, they're quite clear.


It's under :
Creating a monster
Creating quick monster stats
Step 11. Damage -based the damage based on weapons
A single paragraph regarding adjusting big monsters to line up manufactured weapons with natural weapons to keep the CR chart in the beginning of the section useful.

Nothing there has anything to do with PCs.

The paragraph about creatures using weapons too big for them seems to be EXACTLY about PCs. Because in what other scenario would this be likely to be relevant?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well it seems like Zhorn has me covered here. Rules for oversized weapons don't require any jank or guesswork, they're quite clear.

You mean the suggestions that are neither rules nor are for PCs?

It’s the application to pcs as a matter of rule that’s dodgy. Not their application to monsters as a matter of guideline.

[stoutstien]

Well it seems like Zhorn has me covered here. Rules for oversized weapons don't require any jank or guesswork, they're quite clear.



The paragraph about creatures using weapons too big for them seems to be EXACTLY about PCs. Because in what other scenario would this be likely to be relevant?

I think the. Last paragraph is hot garbage regardless but:

Casting enlarge on a dropped weapon or reduce before they can arm themselves. Popular trope so this is likely the strongest reason.

NPCs picking up a different weapon and you need a quick rule of thumb to see if the encounter math has shifted enough to worry about it

Maintaining system logic for "general" high fantasy in terms of what is the baseline limits for npc/weapon combos

Setting up different approaches to make blocks fit into the table at the start of the section.

[titi]

The paragraph about creatures using weapons too big for them seems to be EXACTLY about PCs. Because in what other scenario would this be likely to be relevant?

You could totally make a NPC with a weapon too big for them. It might make for a little story bit, or a comedic moment, or even something else:
A goblin with a greatsword clearly too big for them probably means he stole it from someone
A bunch of bandits trying to use the weapons in an ruined manor and having trouble because of the sheer size of said weapon is an indication of whose manor it used to be

[Zhorn]

A single paragraph regarding adjusting big monsters to line up manufactured weapons with natural weapons to keep the CR chart in the beginning of the section useful.

Nothing there has anything to do with PCs.
uM AcKcHyUalLy (okay ouch, I think I just dealt psychic damage to myself on that joke :smallfrown: not worth it)
'Creature' is the word they use when referring to anything, be it a PC or NPC.
'Monster' is reserved for strictly hostiles, as is the trend specifically for that section of the book, and it flips over to 'creature' for that part indicating it is laying out a general ruling on weapon sizes.
As for aligning with the damage table, weapon size isn't going to get you there. Multi attack, special abilities, damage bonuses are what's going to do the job here.

[stoutstien]

uM AcKcHyUalLy (okay ouch, I think I just dealt psychic damage to myself on that joke :smallfrown: not worth it)
'Creature' is the word they use when referring to anything, be it a PC or NPC.
'Monster' is reserved for strictly hostiles, as is the trend specifically for that section of the book, and it flips over to 'creature' for that part indicating it is laying out a general ruling on weapon sizes.
As for aligning with the damage table, weapon size isn't going to get you there. Multi attack, special abilities, damage bonuses are what's going to do the job here.
So at most it's equal to sanity rules,hero points, phasers, or other things players shouldn't even pretend to factor in without GM direction? Sure.

Something to weigh in as a consideration for a player options viability? Nope.

[Zhorn]

So at most it's equal to sanity rules,hero points, phasers, or other things players shouldn't even pretend to factor in without GM direction? Sure.Sure I guess, if that's the hill you want to die on.
A DM could very well veto or houserule a whole slew of things from all over the place though; oversized weapons isn't some special case in that regard.
The underlying point I'm mostly replying to was in regard to the context and the Frankensteiness(?) of that ruling not being all that out of left field or a mess. It's given within an applicable context and is pretty much consistent with the rules PCs are already following for weapon sizes. Heavy weapons are too big and hefty for small sized creature, so they have disadvantage attacking with them. A higher breakpoint for large weapons in the hands of medium creatures follow naturally from there, and the size and amount of dice for weapons increasing as they go up in size also follows naturally.


Something to weigh in as a consideration for a player options viability? Nope.
I don't think the oversized weapons was needed to be viable; so I guess I must have skipped over that point being made if it was.
Pack Tactics did a discussion on the UA for this subclass last year, and while he did point out oversized weapons doing a damage boost; he does conclude it is not needed to outperform zealot.

https://youtu.be/3skIU5OTqBI?t=349
But again this is all secondary, my initial response was all about the upper portion and what I first responded to, not this viability stuff.

[Damon_Tor]

So at most it's equal to sanity rules,hero points, phasers, or other things players shouldn't even pretend to factor in without GM direction? Sure.

Those are optional rules and clearly labeled as such. The rules on oversized weapons are not. They are clear and unambiguous. A DM is free to houserule them, as he is free to houserule anything, but those are the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Those are optional rules and clearly labeled as such. The rules on oversized weapons are not. They are clear and unambiguous. A DM is free to houserule them, as he is free to houserule anything, but those are the rules.

The DMG has no non-optional player facing rules. And the monster building guidelines are explicitly marked as exactly that--guidelines for DMs.

[stoutstien]

Those are optional rules and clearly labeled as such. The rules on oversized weapons are not. They are clear and unambiguous. A DM is free to houserule them, as he is free to houserule anything, but those are the rules.

The entire book is clearly marked as optional every few paragraphs

From the intro of the DMG:

"The last part helps you adjudicate the rules of the game and modify them to suit the style of your campaign...

Part 3 of this book offers a wealth of information to help adjudicate the rules in a wide variety of situations.....

It also includes options appropriate for certain play styles and a system if you like to create your own stuff in chapter 9."


From the intro of chapter 9:

"This chapter contains optional rules you can use..."



So the oversized weapons rules are optional on 6 different levels even if you discard rule zero. Trying to use RAW as a defense is already the weakest argument one could make but this doesn't come close to that mark.

[Derges]

Enlarge/Reduce modifies the player's weapon die by 1d4 per size category. If the intention was to double/triple it for players wouldn't the spell be more generous?

[stoutstien]

Enlarge/Reduce modifies the player's weapon die by 1d4 per size category. If the intention was to double/triple it for players wouldn't the spell be more generous?

Eh. There is little in the way of patterns. Enlarge adds 1d4, RK add 1d6 once per round(this one is perturbing), and path of Giant adds reach but not damage until lv 14 and even that's done under a feature that isn't tied to getting bigger.


Scale isn't something DnD does well

[Amnestic]

RK add 1d6 once per round(this one is perturbing)

It was 1d6 on every attack in the UA, but they changed it for release. I guess 1d6 per attack was deemed too powerful for a class that got 4 attacks/turn so it (presumably) got dropped down to 1/turn for balance reasons.

Don't really know about that one, but it is what it is.

[Damon_Tor]

The DMG has no non-optional player facing rules.


The entire book is clearly marked as optional

Well, I guess there's nothing to do here but agree to disagree. "The DMG is not a rules source" is a new one to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, I guess there's nothing to do here but agree to disagree. "The DMG is not a rules source" is a new one to me.

It's not at player-facing rules source. And it's not a binding rules source on anyone. It's a source of rules that DMs can, at their discretion, use or not use. Not even rule 0--these are things the players should have no expectation of.

And this particular text is in a chunk explicitly marked as optional in multiple ways--it's explicitly marked that DMs can determine the damage of monsters entirely arbitrarily. And it's marked that it only applies to monster creation.

Context is important. You cannot, in good conscience, lift a paragraph in a sub-sub-section about one (optional) way of creating monster stat blocks and make it out to be a generic rule that everyone is entitled to use at will. Doing so is the worst form of proof-texting and exactly why I consider all arguments from "RAW" to be specious at best.

[stoutstien]

Well, I guess there's nothing to do here but agree to disagree. "The DMG is not a rules source" is a new one to me.

Saying "the DMG is a resource for DMs to make ruling and cater rules for a particular groups" is leagues away from "the DMG is a rule source."

The only real rule source is part 2 of the PHB. Those 2-3 chapters are the entirety of rules as far as what players could reasonably expect at face value without GM buy-in. I might include parts of part 3 just because of the magic rules but that's an editing failure. *Which is normal for 5e. I swear a drunk gibbon with a sickle would have done a better job.*


Let me reiterate. I don see anything wrong with players wielding larger than normal weapons and getting some benefits from doing so. They just don't have any leg to stand on to assume it's a standard option.


It was 1d6 on every attack in the UA, but they changed it for release. I guess 1d6 per attack was deemed too powerful for a class that got 4 attacks/turn so it (presumably) got dropped down to 1/turn for balance reasons.

Don't really know about that one, but it is what it is.

I switched to 1d4 per attack and cut off the scaling at lv 10 now that it scales naturally.

[Zhorn]

Definitely seems like there's a degree of talking past one another going on in this side topic on oversized weapons.
Trying the play peace keeper.

Damon_Tor, correct me if I'm mistaken;
You're initial premise was just that Path of the Giant much like Rune Knight makes for a fun access point for wielding oversized weapons, and the "This subclass seems like a huge sleeper" is just a comment on such a function being an overlooked perk, not the fundamental purpose of the size changing ability.
And not an asserting that oversize weapons was a ruling that tables adhere to regardless of DM disposition on the matter?

Just wanting to get an official clarification on that since stoutstien and PhoenixPhyre read as though that second dot IS what you are saying. This specifically to do with the first page discourse.

Now at a later point on page 2, Damon_Tor, you are commenting on the 'optional rule' categorization on this matter.
Are you saying that you disagree with the optional rule tag because;
These are a description of mechanics for how weapon sizes work and the mechanics relating to damage dice, or
These are must have inclusions for player access because the book lists them

because I'd agree on the first point, but very much say stoutstien and PhoenixPhyre have a good reason for their responses on the second.

To the points stoutstien and PhoenixPhyre keep repeating on player facing rules; I want to give you a yes and no.

The 'yes'
I agree it isn't just up to the players to automatically assume they can grab a monster's larger weapon and use it without DM buy-in.
Player: "Now that we defeated the ogre, can I pick up their large sized greatclub to wield?"
DM: "No, I don't want PCs wielding oversized weapons in my game"
Player: "Okay"
The DM decides, and the players do not take it as a given.

The 'no'
I don't see dismissing sections of the DMG or other books as being invalid for not being "Player Facing Rules" as an appropriate response to someone bringing up the topic of wielding oversized weapons.
Player: "Now that we defeated the ogre, can I pick up their large sized greatclub to wield?"
DM: "Sure, I'm good with PCs wielding oversized weapons in my game"
Player: "okay, how will that work? Do we need to homebrew anything"
DM: "We do not need to homebrew and can instead reference a ruling presented in the DMG. While not a core rule it is still RAW, it allows for consistency with game mechanics for the equipment wielded by monsters of different sizes and is not dissimilar from the PHB rules on small races and weapons with the heavy property"
Damon_Tor's simplification of your stance into "the DMG is no a rule source" is an overly reductionist take on what you were saying. It could have been phrased better and only adds tot he talking past one another. But the underlying sentiment I can respect.
If any table can pick up a book and point to a block of text for a consistent ruling; we should be able to reasonably call it a legitimate 'rule'. I'm not talking 'core' or 'optional' or 'player facing', I just mean we can get the same rule from the same block of text when sitting at anyone's table. No added text, no external homebrew, just a simple "if A then B" rule.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is all a lot of strenuous debate over very little.

Sure, it's "optional". In the sense that, the DM has 2 ways to figure out damage. Use a table that has nothing to do at all with the weapon being used. Or consider the weapon being used.

If you're going with option 2... here are the rules for using a weapon bigger than what you can normally wield.

Yeah, a player can't just assume they can do that.

But it's not some esoteric secret mystery that guru's unlock after 30 days of fasting in a remote cave.

The DMG is basically saying "Hey, there's like... a handful of rules in the PHB. Here's a book on how to figure stuff out if you want to go a little deeper". A rule of "bigger weapons deal bigger damage" is not outlandish or beyond the pale.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is all a lot of strenuous debate over very little.

Sure, it's "optional". In the sense that, the DM has 2 ways to figure out damage. Use a table that has nothing to do at all with the weapon being used. Or consider the weapon being used.

If you're going with option 2... here are the rules for using a weapon bigger than what you can normally wield.

Yeah, a player can't just assume they can do that.

But it's not some esoteric secret mystery that guru's unlock after 30 days of fasting in a remote cave.

The DMG is basically saying "Hey, there's like... a handful of rules in the PHB. Here's a book on how to figure stuff out if you want to go a little deeper". A rule of "bigger weapons deal bigger damage" is not outlandish or beyond the pale.

But it's not a rule. It's a guideline, and not even a binding one. Or one that actual monsters really follow very well at all.

If you call this a rule, then you have to call all of the stuff in that chapter rules. Which makes most of the MM non-conforming.

The whole point is that you can't simply take an optional piece of content, presented as an informal "hey, here's an easy way to calculate this thing" method (one of several) and reify it as a "general rule" that people get to use. Doing so is bad interpretation.

@Zhorn -- My whole point is that you cannot use this as a "rule" by any meaningful use of that word. You can choose to houserule that this applies. You can choose to do any number of things. But none of those are a matter of rule, they're a matter of DM fiat. The DM can choose to extend the suggestion given in the DMG to cover other things other than build-time monster stat block calculation (which is all it encompasses on its face). But doing so is just as much homebrew as creating a new class.

[stoutstien]

It's very hit or miss as far as printed npcs blocks following this section because they openly state that they went of the hip most of the time. Valor is huge and their longsword follows it but the whip? Nah we have a rider on it so make it 2d6 rather than 3.

I think giant-kin are the only category that actually is consistent in that follows those guidelines. They usually start with it but you can see where they made adjustments like most things that reference things in the DMG.

[Zhorn]

But it's not a rule.
...
@Zhorn -- My whole point is that you cannot use this as a "rule" by any meaningful use of that word. You can choose to houserule that this applies. You can choose to do any number of things. But none of those are a matter of rule, they're a matter of DM fiat. The DM can choose to extend the suggestion given in the DMG to cover other things other than build-time monster stat block calculation (which is all it encompasses on its face). But doing so is just as much homebrew as creating a new class.

So the fundamental issue for you is just you do not recognise it can be called a rule... not even an optional rule...

A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.
I think you're getting too fixated on splitting hairs.
We're not talking a rule as in a rule of the universe that explains all things to such perfection that any ingame example is explained by it.
It's a rule as in; "how do I A if B?"

[Psyren]

I think the issue is that "here's a way you can handle this when customizing a monster" is being treated as "here's something you should feel entitled to as a player." If your DM decides that looting an ogre's oversized greatclub gives your size-changing PC a big damage boost, great, but if they decide not to do that, they're entirely justified in saying no too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the issue is that "here's a way you can handle this when customizing a monster" is being treated as "here's something you should feel entitled to as a player." If your DM decides that looting an ogre's oversized greatclub gives your size-changing PC a big damage boost, great, but if they decide not to do that, they're entirely justified in saying no too.

Yeah. I'm being a stickler for the use of "rule" because it sets expectations. And it's exactly this kind (not yours @Psyren, but others here and elsewhere) of 'online commenters can dig out chunks of text, take them entirely out of context, and then proclaim that anyone who doesn't slavishly bow to this new-found "RAW" is not following the rules' attitude that makes me entirely discard any "RAW" argument.

Context matters. And the context declares that this text is not rule text. It doesn't even pretend to be a general rule. Or any kind of rule at all.

@Zhorn--"rule" as a verb (which is what you quoted there) =/= "a rule" as a noun. You can rule (verb) anything. In that context, "rule" and "houserule" are identical. It just means "a DM decision". That is very different from something being a rule (noun), which implies much more--that it's a default setting that everyone is expected to abide by unless they affirmatively choose differently.

[Dr.Samurai]

But it's not a rule. It's a guideline, and not even a binding one. Or one that actual monsters really follow very well at all.


If you call this a rule, then you have to call all of the stuff in that chapter rules. Which makes most of the MM non-conforming.
1. You're arguing as if the word "optional" doesn't qualify "rule" in any meaningful way.

2. I can't check all monsters but a quick glance at minotaurs, ogres, and fire giants shows that they follow this RULE.

The whole point is that you can't simply take an optional piece of content, presented as an informal "hey, here's an easy way to calculate this thing" method (one of several) and reify it as a "general rule" that people get to use. Doing so is bad interpretation.
I don't agree it's a bad faith interpretation. At all.

If my rune knight kills an ogre and picks up his greatclub, what reason do I have to believe it will deal different damage? Now I shrink down to medium size. Does it deal different damage now? Why would it? Can I no longer wield it? Really, my Strength 20 fighter can't lift it?

But what if he can still lift and wield it, but it's harder because it's so big? Well 5E has a mechanic for that, it's called Disadvantage.

The idea that a game not using this optional rule is going to treat it drastically different somehow is kind of absurd. Now obviously that's my opinion and I could be way off, but the DMG treatment seems pretty in line with 5E's approach and also common sense.

If you're arguing that player's shouldn't assume it, yeah sure, I agree. But you can't stop a Rune Knight or Giant Barbarian from picking up the Large weapon of the monster they just killed. So what are you going to do? Tell them they can't carry it around out of spite? Drum up some crazy different rule to the one in the DMG?

[stoutstien]

1. You're arguing as if the word "optional" doesn't qualify "rule" in any meaningful way.

2. I can't check all monsters but a quick glance at minotaurs, ogres, and fire giants shows that they follow this RULE.

I don't agree it's a bad faith interpretation. At all.

If my rune knight kills an ogre and picks up his greatclub, what reason do I have to believe it will deal different damage? Now I shrink down to medium size. Does it deal different damage now? Why would it? Can I no longer wield it? Really, my Strength 20 fighter can't lift it?

But what if he can still lift and wield it, but it's harder because it's so big? Well 5E has a mechanic for that, it's called Disadvantage.

The idea that a game not using this optional rule is going to treat it drastically different somehow is kind of absurd. Now obviously that's my opinion and I could be way off, but the DMG treatment seems pretty in line with 5E's approach and also common sense.

If you're arguing that player's shouldn't assume it, yeah sure, I agree. But you can't stop a Rune Knight or Giant Barbarian from picking up the Large weapon of the monster they just killed. So what are you going to do? Tell them they can't carry it around out of spite? Drum up some crazy different rule to the one in the DMG?

The issue is the player has no idea how much the giant's club does once removed from that individual npc block. A DM could double the damage dice, add a independent damage die, add reach instead, say it's designed is unwieldy due to the long limbs that orges have in comparison to an enlarged humanoid, is poor quality and will likely fall apart id swung with any real skill, or a 1000 things.

This is one of the biggest reasons NPC blocks should never be player facing (for any reason) it leads to madness trying to figure out how two entirely different subsystems interact in ways they were not intended for.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The issue isn't the content of the text at all. It's taking things out of context and proclaiming them to be general rules that is bad interpretation.

And in this case, no. It's not a rule. It's a suggestion at best, one with limited scope. Does applying it elsewhere break things? Not really. But doing so is just as much homebrew as making a new class, with all the same considerations involved. It's not something that should factor into builds, because it's 100% DM fiat.

Edit: and yes, I feel exactly the same way about the omnipresent tendency of people to do similar things (taking text out of context and proclaiming it to be a general rule) in all sorts of "RAW" discussions. It's why I find the concept of "RAW" to be...less than useful.

[Dr.Samurai]

The issue is the player has no idea how much the giant's club does once removed from that individual npc block. A DM could double the damage dice, add a independent damage die, add reach instead, say it's designed is unwieldy due to the long limbs that orges have in comparison to an enlarged humanoid, is poor quality and will likely fall apart id swung with any real skill, or a 1000 things.

This is one of the biggest reasons NPC blocks should never be player facing (for any reason) it leads to madness trying to figure out how two entirely different subsystems interact in ways they were not intended for.
They are not two entirely different subsystems in this case though.

One is dealing 1d8. The other is dealing 2d8.

Yes, the DM can say "well, now that you've picked it up, I'm going to say it operates completely differently". I don't think that will happen more often than the DM simply letting it continue to deal 2d8 damage. Just because "the DM can literally do anything" doesn't mean that "anything" is actually on the table.

[stoutstien]

They are not two entirely different subsystems in this case though.

One is dealing 1d8. The other is dealing 2d8.

Yes, the DM can say "well, now that you've picked it up, I'm going to say it operates completely differently". I don't think that will happen more often than the DM simply letting it continue to deal 2d8 damage. Just because "the DM can literally do anything" doesn't mean that "anything" is actually on the table.

NPCs (anything that isn't a PC) are inherently build differently and have a lot of give within the numbers they have. That 2d8 could be from the size of the weapon OR the size of the orges OR just because X. The basic rules that govern weapon and their damage in the PHB don't apply. For all we know it the suggestions for larger weapons was based on how the write the stat block rather than the other way around. (I'm actually 100% positives this is the case) Meaning the suggestions was like most of the DMG and was a post hoc suggestion based on fees back from late playtest/ initial live play feedback.

The damage they dealt was determined prior to the weapons where giving to them. They just filled gaps as the appeared.

[Dr.Samurai]

NPCs (anything that isn't a PC) are inherently build differently and have a lot of give within the numbers they have. That 2d8 could be from the size of the weapon OR the size of the orges OR just because X. The basic rules that govern weapon and their damage in the PHB don't apply. For all we know it the suggestions for larger weapons was based on how the write the stat block rather than the other way around. (I'm actually 100% positives this is the case) Meaning the suggestions was like most of the DMG and was a post hoc suggestion based on fees back from late playtest/ initial live play feedback.

The damage they dealt was determined prior to the weapons where giving to them. They just filled gaps as the appeared.
I don't know, but it doesn't really seem relevant to me.

In our current AtG game, my Rune Knight picked up a greatclub off a fallen ogre. The DM told me it deals 2d8 damage. That's the same damage an ogre deals with it when they wield it. I only used it when I was Large sized.

You guys are acting like this isn't going to be the case most of the time, and the DM is going to say "Hang on, let me create an entire new subsystem for handling weapons that are large sized when PCs use them. Everyone take five, I'm going to jot some ideas down about how I want this to go."

Can it happen? Sure. The DM could not go with the default damage already printed in the MM, they could not check the optional rule already printed in the DMG. They could ignore Advantage/Disadvantage and go with some completely new way to handle attack modifiers.

But they probably won't. So this strenuous objection to "hey this subclass will let you wield large weapons" seems out of line.

[stoutstien]

I don't know, but it doesn't really seem relevant to me.

In our current AtG game, my Rune Knight picked up a greatclub off a fallen ogre. The DM told me it deals 2d8 damage. That's the same damage an ogre deals with it when they wield it. I only used it when I was Large sized.

You guys are acting like this isn't going to be the case most of the time, and the DM is going to say "Hang on, let me create an entire new subsystem for handling weapons that are large sized when PCs use them. Everyone take five, I'm going to jot some ideas down about how I want this to go."

Can it happen? Sure. The DM could not go with the default damage already printed in the MM, they could not check the optional rule already printed in the DMG. They could ignore Advantage/Disadvantage and go with some completely new way to handle attack modifiers.

But they probably won't. So this strenuous objection to "hey this subclass will let you wield large weapons" seems out of line.
Because there are a *lot* of big weapons that quickly get wonky once you start allowing it at face value. Ice devil's spear and pack of blade was one of the first times this came up in earnest. Or spike shields, man catchers, the dozens of weapons that have riders.

That's why it's a guideline not a rule. It gives the DM leeway and a few warning flags.

Once it's a rule then you have start carving out exceptions rather than the other way around.

I like consistently in weapons but this is also why I don't put those things on the items themselves.

[Amechra]

Wait, why is it a bad thing to give martial characters cool weapons again? Every monster weapon I can think of is either something that wouldn't be out of the norm for a level-appropriate magic weapon or obviously gets its rider from the wielder (Azer, Salamanders, etc).

I mean, yeah, sure, it might be logistically challenging to use a Dao's 4d6 damage + save vs. prone Maul... but that sounds just about right as a Rare magic item.

[stoutstien]

Wait, why is it a bad thing to give martial characters cool weapons again? Every monster weapon I can think of is either something that wouldn't be out of the norm for a level-appropriate magic weapon or obviously gets its rider from the wielder (Azer, Salamanders, etc).

I mean, yeah, sure, it might be logistically challenging to use a Dao's 4d6 damage + save vs. prone Maul... but that sounds just about right as a Rare magic item.

Let's look at this another way. A lv 3 rune knight uses their giant might with a longsword strapped to their back then proceeds to draw it and attack a foe.
At this time the character and their weapon are "large". Currently their attacks would do 1d8 +1d6+ mod.
While maintaining this effect, they pick up an identical size sword that an ogre dropped. How much damage does that sword do?

[Zhorn]

Let's look at this another way. A lv 3 rune knight uses their giant might with a longsword strapped to their back then proceeds to draw it and attack a foe.
At this time the character and their weapon are "large". Currently their attacks would do 1d8 +1d6+ mod.
While maintaining this effect, they pick up an identical size sword that an ogre dropped. How much damage does that sword do?

Well in this scenario you're establishing the sword on the rune knight's back was standard medium weapon for the 1d8, and the 'largeness' is a function of the from the subclass feature for the +1d6.
It'd be a misnomer to call the weapon from the ogre as identical unless it were also a medium sized weapon elevated to large size through the same subclass feature.
Just the same as if we were citing the Enlarge spell to achieve this size alteration for the +1d4.
Giant's Might and Enlarge while thematically similar and narratively the same type of effect they are mechanically specific rules doing two different specific things.
A large weapon for a large monster is specifically different again from either of those two effects, not to be conflated as the same thing.

A natively Medium longsword + Giant's Might ≠ A natively Medium longsword + Enlarge ≠ a natively Large longsword

[prototype00]

Say, I heard the early access folks already have the book. Just wondering if anyone might be able to tell me if there were any changes from the UA? (Hopefully they didn’t put on arbitrary nerfs)

[stoutstien]

Well in this scenario you're establishing the sword on the rune knight's back was standard medium weapon for the 1d8, and the 'largeness' is a function of the from the subclass feature for the +1d6.
It'd be a misnomer to call the weapon from the ogre as identical unless it were also a medium sized weapon elevated to large size through the same subclass feature.
Just the same as if we were citing the Enlarge spell to achieve this size alteration for the +1d4.
Giant's Might and Enlarge while thematically similar and narratively the same type of effect they are mechanically specific rules doing two different specific things.
A large weapon for a large monster is specifically different again from either of those two effects, not to be conflated as the same thing.

A natively Medium longsword + Giant's Might ≠ A natively Medium longsword + Enlarge ≠ a natively Large longsword

That makes even less sense..... unless...the rules for PCs are different than the ones for NPCs so the entire stace backing the logic it is RAW is moot.

[prototype00]

Ah, nerd immersion covered the actual release and it is unchanged from UA, happy days.

[Zhorn]

That makes even less sense..... unless...the rules for PCs are different than the ones for NPCs so the entire stace backing the logic it is RAW is moot.

The Enlarge spell is the same for NPCs as it is for PCs.

The Runeknight's feature Giant's Might would be the same for NPCs as it is for PCs (if you use class levels on monsters)

It isn't a break in logic to say different texts from different books are different rulings, especially if the specifics of their mechanics are spelled out to be different.

Trying to be constructive in this exchange;
is your definition of RAW is that it must be a core rule and/or non-optional?

For clarity; RAW to me just means it is a ruling taken from the official printing of WotC's publication word for word. Rule As Written
Core rules, general rules, specific rules, variant rules, optional rules = all RAW if they come from the book.

The rules for oversized weapons are taken word for word from the DMG.
I'm not saying there's any obligation to use them.

[Dr.Samurai]

That makes even less sense..... unless...the rules for PCs are different than the ones for NPCs so the entire stace backing the logic it is RAW is moot.
This just seems like such a strange mechanic to zero in on the "PCs are different from NPCs" bit, because of how absolutely easy it is for a PC to pick up an NPC large-sized weapon. Like... I imagine it could happen in virtually every. single. campaign. ever run.

The idea that there are no rules for PCs using larger weapons, but there are rules for "creatures" using larger weapons in the DMG, but those don't apply to PCs because... the developers thought "we'll cover all the bases, except the ones where a PC character leans over and picks up a large weapon because... a bigger weapon dealing bigger damage is so conceptually different and complex that no one would ever think it might apply to PCs" is hard to entertain.

I mean... we're not reinventing the wheel here. We're essentially talking about the Heavy mechanic; imposing Disadvantage on attack rolls to use a bigger weapon with bigger dice if you're too small to use the weapon comfortably.

It just doesn't track that this default general rule in the PHB suddenly mutates into something alien and foreign and inapplicable to PCs as an optional rule for larger weapons in the DMG. "Whoa whoa whoa, this rule for PCs that we're copy/pasting doesn't apply to PCs because it's in the DMG. Nevermind all the other stuff in here that applies to PCs."

[stoutstien]

This just seems like such a strange mechanic to zero in on the "PCs are different from NPCs" bit, because of how absolutely easy it is for a PC to pick up an NPC large-sized weapon. Like... I imagine it could happen in virtually every. single. campaign. ever run.

The idea that there are no rules for PCs using larger weapons, but there are rules for "creatures" using larger weapons in the DMG, but those don't apply to PCs because... the developers thought "we'll cover all the bases, except the ones where a PC character leans over and picks up a large weapon because... a bigger weapon dealing bigger damage is so conceptually different and complex that no one would ever think it might apply to PCs" is hard to entertain.

I mean... we're not reinventing the wheel here. We're essentially talking about the Heavy mechanic; imposing Disadvantage on attack rolls to use a bigger weapon with bigger dice if you're too small to use the weapon comfortably.

It just doesn't track that this default general rule in the PHB suddenly mutates into something alien and foreign and inapplicable to PCs as an optional rule for larger weapons in the DMG. "Whoa whoa whoa, this rule for PCs that we're copy/pasting doesn't apply to PCs because it's in the DMG. Nevermind all the other stuff in here that applies to PCs."

No one is saying Don't use that ruling. We are saying the it's existence shouldn't be assumed because nothing in the DMG is player facing. It wouldn't even matter if it was clearly labeled as a variant option for PCs because it still wouldn't be something you could just assume was applicable because you happen to read something online or have a copy of the DMG.

Heck it could be a optional rule in the PHB and you still couldn't say it's a given.

The entire point is you can't say a subclass is good/bad/whatever based on a single optional ruling buried 10 layers deep of DM fiat.

[Zhorn]

No one is saying Don't use that ruling. We are saying the it's existence shouldn't be assumed because nothing in the DMG is player facing.
And I've repeated multiple times that players shouldn't assume it's inclusion either and it is up to the DM.
But dismissing the point from even being discussed because it's not "player facing" is just being pedantic.


It wouldn't even matter if it was clearly labeled as a variant option for PCs because it still wouldn't be something you could just assume was applicable because you happen to read something online or have a copy of the DMG.
But is does exist, and people on forums saying "hey this would be neat to work with" isn't some type of heresy to be stomped on so vehemently.


Heck it could be a optional rule in the PHB and you still couldn't say it's a given.
Sure, but as has been repeated; it's mechanically inline with the 'small vs heavy weapon' rule that IS in the PHB, uses 'creature' in terminology, and is 'player facing'.
Is it the same rule? no, but it is similar enough that if the DM decides to include it it functions mostly the same that it's not difficult to understand.


The entire point is you can't say a subclass is good/bad/whatever based on a single optional ruling buried 10 layers deep of DM fiat.
Which also isn't the case, assuming the subclass is inline with it's UA preview it can perform better than zealot even without using oversized weapons.

For me; the pushback is entirely on
"Saying it's no the 'right' way to go about and is a Frankenstien" ; no, it's mechanically inline with the PHB rule
"That it's not a rule" ; no, it comes from a book of rules and is presented in the framework of a ruling "if A then B", it's a rule
"That it's not RAW" ; it is literally taken word for word from the book

it being in the DMG does not negate that.

Don't like the ruling on a personal level? cool
Don't want to use it? Completely reasonable
Don't think you as a DM should be forced to use it? 100% agree
Is the DMG unorganized mess that is annoying to reference? Yes, that's been a common complaint for years.

[prototype00]

So some thoughts on the class unrelated to weapon size discussions (assuming for simplicity that the DMG optional rules on weapon size damage are not in play, as it is with AL).

1. Elemental Cleaver proc on every hit probably means that you want to have as many attacks as possible. PAM probably then or TWF (less desirable). Fighter multi for action surge beckons as well.

2. Conversely since the really good stuff starts at 6th and up to 14th is all solid, this probably isn’t a good barbarian subclass for dipping.

3. Since you can do reach Shennanigans, Sentinel is definitely a possibility with the 15ft reach with polearms. Just stop one foe dead in their tracks for extended periods, or Overwatch the whole battlefield in a fireball size circle.

4. Conversely you are also a good initiator if you are in a melee heavy party, just grab and toss a foe straight up for 4d6 damage (you are 10ft tall) at lvl 10 and make them prone. Then let all the martials close in. Grappling is possible too but all your tools are geared towards striking, so I don’t know if it’s as worthwhile as with a Rune Knight.

5. Pocket Vortex Warp is great for rescuing or respositioning party members or NPCs. It’ll be a struggle whether to use your bonus for utility or for the PAM attack, but you will be using that Bonus action every turn.

6. If you are a flying race you can make use of your extended reach to huck enemies skyward for 5d6 damage at 10th level (lol) and make them prone.

All in all, a utility heavy, damage heavy, control heavy barbarian subclass. You just will have to decide what you want to do turn by turn, which will be the hardest part.

[stoutstien]

So some thoughts on the class unrelated to weapon size discussions (assuming for simplicity that the DMG optional rules on weapon size damage are not in play, as it is with AL).

1. Elemental Cleaver proc on every hit probably means that you want to have as many attacks as possible. PAM probably then or TWF (less desirable). Fighter multi for action surge beckons as well.

2. Conversely since the really good stuff starts at 6th and up to 14th is all solid, this probably isn’t a good barbarian subclass for dipping.

3. Since you can do reach Shennanigans, Sentinel is definitely a possibility with the 15ft reach with polearms. Just stop one foe dead in their tracks for extended periods, or Overwatch the whole battlefield in a fireball size circle.

4. Conversely you are also a good initiator if you are in a melee heavy party, just grab and toss a foe straight up for 4d6 damage (you are 10ft tall) at lvl 10 and make them prone. Then let all the martials close in. Grappling is possible too but all your tools are geared towards striking, so I don’t know if it’s as worthwhile as with a Rune Knight.

5. Pocket Vortex Warp is great for rescuing or respositioning party members or NPCs. It’ll be a struggle whether to use your bonus for utility or for the PAM attack, but you will be using that Bonus action every turn.

6. If you are a flying race you can make use of your extended reach to huck enemies skyward for 5d6 damage at 10th level (lol) and make them prone.

All in all, a utility heavy, damage heavy, control heavy barbarian subclass. You just will have to decide what you want to do turn by turn, which will be the hardest part.

1. Cleaver only works on a single weapon and only while ranging. Both are unneeded limitations. I need to to watch it but if they didn't make any major change it has next to zero non-rage related features. A limited cantrip pick and a language.

2. Multiclassing isn't something that should be factored in at a base examination or few things wouldn't look bad.

3. the reach is nice but can conflict with grapple/shove tactics if you aren't careful. You also can create "safe zones" where creatures can move about without AOs.

4. This is probably the best use for impel alone but the fact it stacks with blender tactics makes it really powerful. Almost as good as a yo yo warlock besides once again it's rage based.

5. rage activation conflict is the only real issue. Not having your coolest feature available during the first round forever is frustrating.

6. You could also just jump before you impel like a mega uppercut.


All n all it's a good idea poorly executed. Overly reliant on rage and just makes the best tactics stronger rather than adding new ones. Also rage on thrown melee weapons should just be a thing for all barbs.

[Dr.Samurai]

No one is saying Don't use that ruling. We are saying the it's existence shouldn't be assumed because nothing in the DMG is player facing. It wouldn't even matter if it was clearly labeled as a variant option for PCs because it still wouldn't be something you could just assume was applicable because you happen to read something online or have a copy of the DMG.
We assume all types of stuff for the purposes of discussion on this forum. Feats and multiclass are optional rules. Players NEVER get to decide if a game will allow feats or multiclassing. But we assume they're allowed almost all the time when we talk here.

Heck it could be a optional rule in the PHB and you still couldn't say it's a given.
No one is saying it's a given.

The entire point is you can't say a subclass is good/bad/whatever based on a single optional ruling buried 10 layers deep of DM fiat.
Yeah you can. Because it's not based on DM fiat, it's based on an assumption of DM fiat. Because it's a talking point.

If I say "You know, the sorcadin is a powerful frontliner with serious damage potential", the forum police aren't going to arrest me for assuming DM fiat with the multiclassing variant rule.


For me; the pushback is entirely on
"Saying it's no the 'right' way to go about and is a Frankenstien" ; no, it's mechanically inline with the PHB rule
"That it's not a rule" ; no, it comes from a book of rules and is presented in the framework of a ruling "if A then B", it's a rule
"That it's not RAW" ; it is literally taken word for word from the book

it being in the DMG does not negate that.

Don't like the ruling on a personal level? cool
Don't want to use it? Completely reasonable
Don't think you as a DM should be forced to use it? 100% agree
Is the DMG unorganized mess that is annoying to reference? Yes, that's been a common complaint for years.
Yeah this is where I'm at as well.


All in all, a utility heavy, damage heavy, control heavy barbarian subclass. You just will have to decide what you want to do turn by turn, which will be the hardest part.
That's what I struggle with right now with my rune knight. Too many buttons for this simpleton to play around with. I keep telling myself I have to make flashcards to keep track of my rune abilities, but I haven't gotten around to doing so. I just used my one rune that stupifies the target for the second time since the campaign started 11 months ago lol.

This barbarian subclass will be far simpler than Rune Knight thankfully, but yeah, your bonus action might still make you wonder what you'll do next turn.


3. the reach is nice but can conflict with grapple/shove tactics if you aren't careful. You also can create "safe zones" where creatures can move about without AOs.
Yeah, the safe zones part is a silly consequence of the current reach rules lol.

I'll say though that reach can also work in tandem with grapple and shove, by keeping an enemy too far to hit you.

4. This is probably the best use for impel alone but the fact it stacks with blender tactics makes it really powerful. Almost as good as a yo yo warlock besides once again it's rage based.
Not the strongest use but I'm thinking someone with Polearm Master could hit an enemy closing in on them as a reaction, on their turn attack them, then bonus action toss them away, forcing them to close in and proc Polearm Master reaction attack again.

5. rage activation conflict is the only real issue. Not having your coolest feature available during the first round forever is frustrating.
Agreed, however turning Large is a big benefit for controlling enemies. I'd say it should upgrade at some point so that you can use it when you Rage, but you get it at level 10 so the next level would be 14, which is too late.

All n all it's a good idea poorly executed. Overly reliant on rage and just makes the best tactics stronger rather than adding new ones. Also rage on thrown melee weapons should just be a thing for all barbs.
The Large size expands your grappling potential, and Mighty Impel lets you move creatures around the battlefield, so I think it does open up some tactics. I'm not crazy about elemental cleaver, because giants don't really add elemental damage to their weapons, or teleport them back to their hands, but it's fine. It will open up some interesting character designs. (I agree that barbarian subclasses rely too much on Rage.)

[stoutstien]

You have to be careful with prone with reach because of the disadvantage if you are more than 5 ft away.

Great when you are trolling npcs with reach but is a tad annoying in cases like this.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's true. But with Reckless, there is no need to Prone. So you save an attack and don't have to worry about Advantage to hit you (from that 1 enemy at least).

The Prone dynamic is a bit tricky. For my current party, it benefits my Rune Knight fighter (GWM), our Monk, and our Druid (summons, Moon druid beast forms). But our Sharpshooter Ranger is not too keen on it. In fights where the druid isn't in melee, it often feels... rude? to knock an enemy prone for the monk and I to wail on while the ranger gets Disadvantage. When there's multiple enemies, it's less of an issue, though he is often looking to focus fire to take advantage of Colossus Slayer.

Most times we're just like "sorry dude", and knock enemies prone lol. I'll use the Shove action or the Monk will use Flurry of Blows (Open Hand). (Monk has gotten some Stuns off, which is great and benefits everyone, but it's been hit or miss and he doesn't like spending ki on it half the time because the enemies have good con saves.)

[stoutstien]

That's true. But with Reckless, there is no need to Prone. So you save an attack and don't have to worry about Advantage to hit you (from that 1 enemy at least).

The Prone dynamic is a bit tricky. For my current party, it benefits my Rune Knight fighter (GWM), our Monk, and our Druid (summons, Moon druid beast forms). But our Sharpshooter Ranger is not too keen on it. In fights where the druid isn't in melee, it often feels... rude? to knock an enemy prone for the monk and I to wail on while the ranger gets Disadvantage. When there's multiple enemies, it's less of an issue, though he is often looking to focus fire to take advantage of Colossus Slayer.

Most times we're just like "sorry dude", and knock enemies prone lol. I'll use the Shove action or the Monk will use Flurry of Blows (Open Hand). (Monk has gotten some Stuns off, which is great and benefits everyone, but it's been hit or miss and he doesn't like spending ki on it half the time because the enemies have good con saves.)

Could always drag them to the feet of the ranger so they can tap and then move away.

[Damon_Tor]

You could use impel with the brace maneuver: throw the other guy into the air, use brace when they fall back down. Turn your reaction into an attack on your terms without needing an enemy action to trigger it

[Boverk]

You could use impel with the brace maneuver: throw the other guy into the air, use brace when they fall back down. Turn your reaction into an attack on your terms without needing an enemy action to trigger it

Does the Brace Maneuver work with forced movement?

[Psyren]

Mighty Impel should have let the target choose between Dex or Str save similar to a grapple. You have to grab them to throw them after all, and dexterous enemies should be hard to touch.


You have to be careful with prone with reach because of the disadvantage if you are more than 5 ft away.

Great when you are trolling npcs with reach but is a tad annoying in cases like this.

Prone should really be advantage to melee attacks (regardless of reach) and disadvantage to ranged. The point is whether you can swing down or not.


You could use impel with the brace maneuver: throw the other guy into the air, use brace when they fall back down. Turn your reaction into an attack on your terms without needing an enemy action to trigger it

You're giving up your bonus action to do it though no? It's not as much of a gain as it appears, on top of the build resource costs.

[Boverk]

the Nerd Immersion videos were mentioned earlier, so I thought I'd link them. They actually show the text of the document on screen, so you can read along if desired.

Nerd Immersion Video for Path of the Giants Barbarian (https://youtu.be/Yn-2Wk_fMO4)

Nerd Immersion Video for the new Backgrounds (https://youtu.be/crvUh18JPUA)

They said they'd do the new feats for the next video, so I'll keep an eye out for that.

[Dr.Samurai]

I really like the idea of throwing enemies into AoE effects (whether natural hazards or ally spells/features). Also, throwing a Warlock of the Undead into a group of enemies like a bomb when their Necrotic Husk is about to trigger.

[stoutstien]

Mighty Impel should have let the target choose between Dex or Str save similar to a grapple. You have to grab them to throw them after all, and dexterous enemies should be hard to touch.

Do you. I thought it needed to be in that range but it's basically a "giant" themed Jedi force slam. You don't need a free hand or even be standing after all....wait it has no limits so you could do it while restrained. Guess it's a hip check?



Prone should really be advantage to melee attacks (regardless of reach) and disadvantage to ranged. The point is whether you can swing down or not.


Barbs is a nutshell. Looks great until you get into the details and then find out it's killed by dumb rules and odd limitations that serve no purpose.

[Damon_Tor]

You're giving up your bonus action to do it though no? It's not as much of a gain as it appears, on top of the build resource costs.

You aren't really giving it up: you're still getting all the benefits of tossing the other guy 30 feet into the air, IE, 3d6 fall damage and prone, in addition to your attack.