Are Goliaths able to wield large sized weapons in 5e?

With the new Elemental Evil Player’s Companion released awhile ago, Goliaths were added to 5e. I’m unfamiliar with 3.5 and previous editions, but I know that they were included and wielding large weapons was a thing you could potentially do.

Goliaths in 5e have the same trait as 3.5 it seems

Powerful Build. You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift.

So, does this mean a Goliath can wield large-sized weapons? The pushing/dragging/lifting capacity for a strong Goliath (say 16 str) would be nearly 1000 lbs (16 * 60) and the carrying capacity half of that. A heavy weapon weighs between 10-20 lbs, but this IS significant weight to be throwing around in battle, but I am unsure of the weight of a large weapon. My DM and I are unsure of the mechanics if a Goliath could. We talked about doing an extra die roll for damage, which is extremely strong, or treating the Goliath as if he were under the Enlarged Creature spell, which gives a +4 to damage, which seems more balanced in our opinions.

Are there rules for wielding large weapons in 5e? Can a Goliath wield large weapons out of the box with no feats?

Improvised weapons and proficiency

I would like to know if I utilize “use an object” on an acid vial or alchemist’s fire and they are treated as improvised weapons with the respective range attack up to 20 feet, can I add my proficiency bonus to my attack rolls with those items?

Evidently, tavern brawler feat allows the character become proficient with improvised weapons. This would work obviously.

  • proficiency bonus + Dex modifier for attack rolls with that improvised weapon.

Although, I want to argue that vials and flasks are similar to Actual weapons of martial weapons category like the net or simple weapons category like darts and slings. This would allow my character to add the proficiency bonus to attack rolls as if the flasks or vials were similar to those weapon characteristics or properties in terms of ranged attacks and almost the same range. He/she is proficient in both simple and martial weapons.

I want to assume that vials and flasks can resemble darts, slings, and nets, so I can gain that proficiency bonus. In the end, it also depends on my DM’s discretion.

In similarities, a table leg can be familiarized as a club. In that case, I would be able to use the proficiency bonus as if a character is proficient and familiar with simple weapons.

I haven’t found anything on vials and flasks being recognized as darts, slings, and nets.

Thank you for reading.

How can I create a Viking/Saiyan that creates his own weapons with energy, ki or magic?

I’m going to play on a table with some friends and I wish to create a Viking-type warrior that is able to use energy/ki/magic to create weapons and fight like a barbarian but without being one. The character creation limitations are to be a lvl 5, using the core rulebook 2nd edition, advanced players guide and Lost omens: character guide, Gods and magic & Legends.

The concept would be a Viking/Saiyan, so it’s starting from a low lvl 5 and the campaign is estimated to end up anywhere from lvl 8 to 10. Any magic that he learns is focused on the typical saiyan powers from dragon ball (flying, ki attacks, move absurdly fast and, if possible, visual indication of powering up like going super saiyan).

Are monks only allowed to use non-unarmed weapons as off-hand when two-weapon fighting?

Do the special rules regarding monks’ unarmed strikes prevent monks from using unarmed strikes as off-hand weapons when using two-weapon fighting?

The monk class’ unarmed strike section states:

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

The context of this is dealing with 1x vs. 1/2x strength, but as a side effect, does it mean a monk must use a weapon rather than an unarmed strike when using two weapon fighting to generate more attacks per round?

Two-weapon fighting states:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

It then states later on, confirming that unarmed strikes may normally be used:

(An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

Wielding two weapons without “Two-Weapon Fighting” or “Dual Wielder”?

We have a Barbarian on our team that very much likes to switch up his weapons; he goes from a Dwarven Hammer, to a pair of Hand-Axes, to occasionally just going bare-fisted. No issues there, he’s fairly adept with all 3.

However, I have only just recently picked up on the way that he rolls his attacks for the two Hand-Axes: He rolls the first attack, adds his modifiers etc. Then he rolls the second attack, this time without modifiers, which is all well and good. But I’m not sure if this action uses his bonus action or not, or is considered a separate action (though, being a level 4 Barbarian, he only has one action per turn), or is merely part of the same action.

If we have a look at the Two-Weapon Fighting feature from the Fighter’s fighting styles:

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack. (PHB5e p.72)

Similarly, the Dual Wielder feat also uses the Two-Weapon Fighting feat:

Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

  • You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light. (PHB5e p.164, emphasis mine)

So; yes, this gives a bonus to the second weapon attack, but having asked a separate question to clarify which action this secondary weapon attack belongs to, it was determined that this uses your bonus action;

[…] the second attack requires a bonus action

So after that long winded explanation, here is the question: Without any additional feats, can you wield and use two weapons at once, and if so, how many actions does it require to make a full attack with both weapons in a turn?

Can I use Two Weapon fighting with Heavy weapons by being enlarged?

I love the idea of two-weapon fighting, and tinkering around with it. My character is going to be a Paladin. But to effectively dual wield as a Paladin I need to delve into either Ranger or Fighter, unless the DM is gracious and gives me Two-Weapon Fighting Style instead of the Paladin’s normal choices. For the purposes of this question, we will assume that isn’t the case.

Paladin 12 / Fighter 8 is the final build. Only going up to 12 in Paladin for the automatic divine weapon smite 1d8 bonus on damage attacks and the ASI. I’ll be doing Vengeance for Hunter’s Mark, adding another 1d6 per attack. Assuming Dual Wielder Feat, an attack should be roughly 2d8 + 1d6 + mod, which is relatively decent in my eyes considering you do that 3 times per round + occasional smiting on critical hits.

For Fighter at level 3 I would be going Eldritch Knight for bonding weapons and more spell slots.

This is where things can get a bit fun, and a bit iffy. From what I have read, wielding a heavy weapon in one hand gives disadvantage on attack rolls. Using the 2nd level spell Enlarge, you then pull out two bad ass heavy weapons and proceed to two-weapon style with them.

Honestly this is completely up to DM ruling and whatnot. For example PHB p. 147:

Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.

Based on that alone you could overrule having a greatsword in each hand, even when under the effects of enlarge. Becoming a size category larger would make sense that you could wield heavier weapons though, for the same reasoning small creatures can’t use heavy weapons all that great but medium can. Enlarge only lasts for 1 minute, and requires concentration, so if you fail a concentration saving throw to maintain it you are now stuck with two huge weapons you can’t really use, forcing you to switch back to regular ones.

Another question would be does the added 1d4 damage apply to the greatswords.

The target’s weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target’s attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage.

Would switching to the greatswords beforehand add in the extra damage? Or would they now be even bigger and your new size unable to wield them anyway? I could always switch to the greatswords after the spell has been cast. In either case, could this work?

Are you still two-weapon fighting if you’ve thrown one of your two weapons and are no longer holding it?

In this question we see that two-weapon fighting with darts is not possible because they are not melee weapons. Let’s replace the darts in that scenario with daggers, which are valid light melee weapons for two-weapon fighting, and also have the thrown property.

Two-weapon fighting says:

Two-Weapon Fighting.

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Consider this scenario:

Bob the rogue has two daggers drawn and ready to go. He throws his first dagger as his attack action, satisfying the condition of "when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand."

At this point, he is no longer holding this weapon in hand because he has thrown it. He is now holding only one dagger, in his other hand. In this case, the condition above has been met, but does he get to use the bonus action to attack with a "different light melee weapon [held in his] other hand" even though he is now wielding only a single weapon?

In other words, is the bonus attack granted at the moment the first attack made, as long as you meet that first condition of "attack[ing] with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand," regardless of how many weapons you end up holding after the first attack?

How does the Dual Wielder feat interact with versatile weapons?

I have a level 4 Paladin with the Dual Wielder feat (PHB p. 165):

You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

  • You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
  • You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
  • You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

He does not have the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style. He is wielding a longsword in one hand and a handaxe in his other (a thrown weapon).

Can the paladin throw the handaxe, switch grips on the longsword to hold it two-handed, and then use his bonus action from Two-Weapon Fighting to swing the longsword as a two-handed weapon?

If yes, can he then end his turn by drawing another handaxe (2nd free object interaction for Dual Wielder, and assuming he has another axe to draw)?

Does having natural weapons prevent a wild-shaped monk from using Martial Arts?

The monk’s Martial Arts feature’s benefits all require a monk to be “unarmed or only wielding monk weapons”. Even if you’re a Way of the Kensei monk, that only lets you add a couple of new simple or martial weapons to your monk weapon list.

The druid’s Wild Shape forms all come wielding natural weapon attacks. Natural attacks are not unarmed attacks, nor are they monk weapons, nor are they simple or martial weapons that can possibly be chosen by a kensei.

Therefore, a beast is never “unarmed”, and thus can never use a druid/monk’s martial arts benefits even if it wanted to choose to use unarmed strikes instead of its natural attacks.

Is this accurate? Or, can a beast choose not to “wield” it’s teeth and claws?

This blanket prohibition on Martial Arts when one has natural weapons seems overly-restrictive; it would mean, for example, that a Minotaur can never be a monk, since they are “never unarmed.”

I am explicitly not answering the (already answered and very obvious) question of whether animals can make unarmed attacks. I am asking whether they can ever choose not to “wield” their own natural weapons, so as to be able to use martial arts in the first place.