D&D 5E [RANT] Why are centaurs not humanoids / unplayable?

[Lehrbuch]

The problem with a Large PC race is that it can use Large weapons (2xdice).

Only if the Large PC is actually wielding an oversized weapon.

Given that the man-bit of a centaur (the bit with the arms) is more-or-less normal person sized, a centaur should be wielding normal sized weaponry. The specifics of centaur anatomy mean that he can't really wield oversized weaponry. So, this is not an issue.

 

[Mouseferatu]

A horse is Large. So, centaurs should be too.

Also to carry other (Medium sized) characters into combat a mount must be at least one size larger. So, if a centaur PC is going to be carrying other PCs into combat he has to be Large.

True, but the human half of the centaur isn't Large. The arms, the hands, the chest, the muscles... Those are all human-sized. The fact that my ass is a horse doesn't let me hold a zweihander any better.

So it would be quite appropriate to say they're still limited to Medium weapons.

 

[MechaPilot]

A horse is Large. So, centaurs should be too.

Also to carry other (Medium sized) characters into combat a mount must be at least one size larger. So, if a centaur PC is going to be carrying other PCs into combat he has to be Large.

Why must the centaur be a mount and use mount rules? Can't the centaur simply carry someone on its back the way humans would carry backpacks on their backs? To me, it makes more sense that a centaur can't be a mount and still do its own thing because a rider would get in the way of the centuar making full use of her human upper body. Also, I don't picture centaurs being all that willing to be ridden by others.

 

[Lehrbuch]

So it would be quite appropriate to say they're still limited to Medium weapons.

Yes. I agree (see my post after the one you quote!). A centaur PC should be Large, but cannot wield oversized weaponry.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Why must the centaur be a mount and use mount rules?

Because it makes sense. His ass / back is a horse.

To me, it makes more sense that a centaur can't be a mount and still do its own thing because a rider would get in the way of the centuar making full use of her human upper body.

That doesn't really seem consistent with the conventional way a centaur is drawn. The conventional depiction of a centaur doesn't seem to imply anything anatomically problematic with a centaur being ridden, more-or-less, like a horse.

Also, I don't picture centaurs being all that willing to be ridden by others.

Perhaps. But drow are homicidal hate machines, and nonetheless Drizzt Do'Urden is a possibility. PCs don't have to conform to stereotypes.

Besides, even if the centaur hates being ridden, he could still submit to it occasionally (preceded by much intra-party bickering and cajoling; "We'll even give Ed a handful of sugar afterwards.", etc.).

 

[MechaPilot]

Because it makes sense. His ass / back is a horse.

It makes sense that a centaur could carry someone who wants to ride her, if the centaur chose to, for that reason. However, that doesn't indicate a need to use mount rules for it.

That doesn't really seem consistent with the conventional way a centaur is drawn. The conventional depiction of a centaur doesn't seem to imply anything anatomically problematic with a centaur being ridden, more-or-less, like a horse.

A centuar using a sword or a spear is not going to be impeded by a rider? That doesn't sound right to me. A rider will be seated not that far behind the human torso of the centaur. A lot of the shoulder movement that a centaur would make when raising and lowering a sword to chop or slash down at her foes, or the movements of the back half of a spear used in combat by the centaur, would result in possibly striking the rider with an upper arm, elbow, or the back end of a spear.

Perhaps. But drow are homicidal hate machines, and nonetheless Drizzt Do'Urden is a possibility. PCs don't have to conform to stereotypes.

Besides, even if the centaur hates being ridden, he could still submit to it occasionally (preceded by much intra-party bickering and cajoling; "We'll even give Ed a handful of sugar afterwards.", etc.).

Sure, but a human could submit to being used as a mount and then cajoled in the same way. It doesn't seem like a valid argument for the centaur needing the mount property.

 

[Lehrbuch]

It makes sense that a centaur could carry someone who wants to ride her, if the centaur chose to, for that reason. However, that doesn't indicate a need to use mount rules for it.

You do know that the mount rules are pretty non-problematic? The rules just say if the proposed creature is one size category larger and has appropriate anatomy, it can be a mount, and then gives rules for working out movement if you mount/dismount during your turn and saving throws for falling off. That's pretty much it.

If the mount is acting independently (which sounds like a PC/NPC centaur), instead of controlled, then the rules go on to say that "Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes." (5e SRD, page 99)

A centuar using a sword or a spear is not going to be impeded by a rider?...

Well, the rules don't seem to think that a pegasus or griffon (the stated examples of exotic mounts) will be significantly impeded by a rider. Whereas anatomically, I could imagine that a rider could interfere with wing movement. So, I don't really see any need to go to town on penalising a centaur mount.

I guess you could impose disadvantage on the centaur for attempting some things, if he's bearing a mount. But, except for rare circumstances, that seems to stink of DM is un-fun.

Sure, but a human could submit to being used as a mount and then cajoled in the same way.

But a human isn't (normally) Large (and has the wrong anatomy) so isn't a mount...and therefore would be impeded by carrying around other (Medium) people in the middle of combat. That's the whole point.

 

[MechaPilot]

You do know that the mount rules are pretty non-problematic? The rules just say if the proposed creature is one size category larger and has appropriate anatomy, it can be a mount, and then gives rules for working out movement if you mount/dismount during your turn and saving throws for falling off. That's pretty much it.

If the mount is acting independently (which sounds like a PC/NPC centaur), instead of controlled, then the rules go on to say that "Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes." (5e SRD, page 99)

I know that the mount rules are not particularly problematic. I also know that there are some who would say "what mount rules?" because they are not very robust. The mount rules only enter into the equation because you are insisting that a centaur must be large sized because they must adhere to the mount rules. I simply suggested that the centaur does not have to follow the mount rules with regard to being large-sized, just as the Goliath doesn't have to be large-sized to get the carrying capacity benefits of large size.

Well, the rules don't seem to think that a pegasus or griffon (the stated examples of exotic mounts) will be significantly impeded by a rider. Whereas anatomically, I could imagine that a rider could interfere with wing movement. So, I don't really see any need to go to town on penalising a centaur mount.

I guess you could impose disadvantage on the centaur for attempting some things, if he's bearing a mount. But, except for rare circumstances, that seems to stink of DM is un-fun.

The rules also think that a pegasus could fly without pectoral muscles the size of Volkswagon. I am personally fine with handwaving the impediment that a rider would cause to a centaur, especially if the centaur is of the large-sized category. I was simply pointing out valid biological reasons why a centaur who may not be fully large-sized in the same manner that the goliath is not fully large-sized might not want to accept a rider, or even be particularly suited to be being ridden in combat.

But a human isn't (normally) Large (and has the wrong anatomy) so isn't a mount...and therefore would be impeded by carrying around other (Medium) people in the middle of combat. That's the whole point.

Sure, but your average human doesn't stand 8 feet tall. A goliath does, despite not being part of the large-sized category. And that was my point, that a centaur wouldn't necessarily need to be of large-size to be larger than average. The goliath creates the precedent for doing that.

 

[Lehrbuch]

And that was my point, that a centaur wouldn't necessarily need to be of large-size to be larger than average. The goliath creates the precedent for doing that.

And the horse creates the precedent for a centaur being Large, as does the Monster Manual entry for centaur, for that matter. The expectation that the PCs would want the possibility of using a centaur as a mount also requires it to be Large; if you want to use the existing rules.

Being Large does also neatly capture a lot of the (positive and negative) issues about centaur manoeuvrability indoors.

Basically, I can't imagine why you do not want a centaur PC to be Large.

 

[MechaPilot]

And the horse creates the precedent for a centaur being Large, as does the Monster Manual entry for centaur, for that matter. The expectation that the PCs would want the possibility of using a centaur as a mount also requires it to be Large; if you want to use the existing rules.

Being Large does also neatly capture a lot of the (positive and negative) issues about centaur manoeuvrability indoors.

Basically, I can't imagine why you do not want a centaur PC to be Large.

I am not wedded to the centaur being any specific size (though smaller than medium would be odd. Larger than large would also be strange, but less so than small-sized or smaller). I don't think it even matters if the centaur is large-sized because, as you and others have astutely pointed out, the centaur's human torso is not proportionally larger than a human's, and the centaur would therefore not be using oversized weapons (hence, removing a potential source of boosted damage for the PC centaur). Further, the centaur would have to deal with having more adjacent space for melee enemies to fill (a centaur could potentially be mobbed by ten foes instead of just eight, which is not much of an issue, but it could be a negative factor if the DM is using the mob combat rules from the DMG).