D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Oofta]

Again the DM controls the fantasy. In a world where centaurs can be adventurers and adventurers need to climb ladders, either some version of equipment will exist to enable it, or the centaur can just do it. EZPZ.

It's all imaginary; the only things that are physically impossible, are the things the DM decides are physically impossible.

Also, this is not to say that centaurs should have zero issues. IIRC, they are still large creatures and so subject to the same mechanical issues other large creatures run into. Anything beyond that is just fiat.

I don't change things one way or another for any PC. If it makes sense for there to be a cliff, there will be a cliff.

The world does not change for any PC and a centaur could not climb a cliff.

 

[Jaeger]

This is an interesting line of discussion, and I've seen it pop up in other threads. There are two schools of thought:
A. The players should adapt their characters to the world that the DM has created
B. The DM should adapt the world to the characters the players have created

Two more options IMHO:

C. The DM is running a game set in a published setting with many playable races: Like a Forgotten Realms campaign. I would say that it is a very reasonable expectation for potential players to feel that all playable FR races are on offer.

D. The DM likes, and has no problem with the players choosing any race they want. The DM likes Kitchen Sink campaigns and/or likes molding a world around his players choices.

Absolutely none of these four ways of running a game are wrong.

Especially option: A

From page 26 of the Dungeon Master's Guide: It's pretty clear that the DM is well within bounds to restrict or even prohibit certain options for character creation, including prohibited races. It's also pretty clear that the DM is expected to communicate this clearly to the players, as they start developing the campaign, in writing.

Crystal clear right there in the rules.

No character flaw required.

How does a DM with "vision" communicate that fairly, and respond appropriately to players that aren't automatically on board?

How does a player with "inspiration" share that with the DM in a constructive way, so they can play enthusiastically in the world offered?

Like Adults.

.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I don't change things one way or another for any PC. If it makes sense for there to be a cliff, there will be a cliff.

The world does not change for any PC and a centaur could not climb a cliff.

A centaur could not climb a cliff..because you say so. There are even rules for centaur climbing, and they don't begin with "it's impossible", so it's literally just you deciding that's the case.

You certainly can do that.. but there's no higher purpose you're serving that way.

 

[Oofta]

A centaur could not climb a cliff..because you say so. There are even rules for centaur climbing, and they don't begin with "it's impossible", so it's literally just you deciding that's the case.

You certainly can do that.. but there's no higher purpose you're serving that way.

A centaur could not climb a cliff because horses cannot.

Feel free to run it however you want, I'm just relating what my ruling would be. Centaurs do not get spider climb.

 

[Gammadoodler]

A centaur could not climb a cliff because horses cannot.

Feel free to run it however you want, I'm just relating what my ruling would be. Centaurs do not get spider climb.

Centaurs..are mythological. The cliff is imaginary. The PC is imaginary. The setting is imaginary.

No one's scoring any reality points with how they rule this thing. It's an issue that only exists when a DM says so and only because the DM says so.

The point remains, verisimilitude issues are self-inflicted.

(Note: this is not even addressing the part where there are actual published rules designed to address this exact question.. which your ruling ignores).

 

[SkidAce]

Blanket refusal to compromise unless one has to is a character flaw.

Agreed, for both sides.

 

[Oofta]

Centaurs..are mythological. The cliff is imaginary. The PC is imaginary. The setting is imaginary.

No one's scoring any reality points with how they rule this thing. It's an issue that only exists when a DM says so and only because the DM says so.

The point remains, verisimilitude issues are self-inflicted.

(Note: this is not even addressing the part where there are actual published rules designed to address this exact question.. which you're ruling ignores).

Since I don't have access to the rules for centaurs I have no idea what you're talking about.

However, it is up to each DM, each table, to figure out how close to realistic they want their game to be. D&D is not particularly realistic, but it can be reality-adjacent.

I'm not telling you how to run your game, don't tell me how to run mine.

 

[Minigiant]

This is an interesting line of discussion, and I've seen it pop up in other threads. There are two schools of thought:
A. The players should adapt their characters to the world that the DM has created
B. The DM should adapt the world to the characters the players have created

And both schools are correct in varying aspects. The players don't dictate which challenges they will find in a dungeon, and it's not the DM's job to dictate the characters' actions, for example. But this thread is strictly about character race, and the DMG has some insight specifically for this example. From page 26 of the Dungeon Master's Guide:

View attachment 130484

It's pretty clear that the DM is well within bounds to restrict or even prohibit certain options for character creation, including prohibited races. It's also pretty clear that the DM is expected to communicate this clearly to the players, as they start developing the campaign, in writing.

Interpretations will vary, of course. My two cents: the DM isn't "wrong" for prohibiting certain races and other options from the campaign, nor are the players "wrong" for complaining about restrictions that the DM failed to properly inform them of.

Really I think much of the argument is about the second bulletpoint and not the first. In most caseswhen neither the DM norplayers are being ridiculously stubborn, the two sides can get past race and class restriction if the theme or direction is okay for both parties.

Maybe I'm weird but it's themes, genre, and directions that are the turn offs for me. There are direct ways to learn on playing an elf or a centaur

It's not the human/dwarf/elf/halfling list that is the turn off. It's the low magic low fantasy lean with little sense of wonder in the setting that turns me off.

If you say no Minotaurs, Satyrs and Centaurs... it might hint againt a Epic or Myth campaign that these greek races hint to. If the DM doesn't counter, a player might sense a more grounded game and infer things if the DM does not state more. No changelings slights against espionage and politics. No gobliniods hints against wicknedness or conquest.

It all comes back to clarity. Dropping a game because of race or class is usually weird to me.

 

[overgeeked]

Since I don't have access to the rules for centaurs I have no idea what you're talking about.

However, it is up to each DM, each table, to figure out how close to realistic they want their game to be. D&D is not particularly realistic, but it can be reality-adjacent.

I'm not telling you how to run your game, don't tell me how to run mine.

According to the book with centaurs:

“In addition, any climb that requires hands and feet is especially difficult for you because of your equine legs. When you make such a climb, each foot of movement costs you 4 extra feet instead of the normal 1 extra foot.”

So apparently the trite refrain that “problems with verisimilitude are self-inflicted” is pure bunk. The book says it’s about 2.5 times harder to climb as a centaur. So they’re trying for verisimilitude and playability. Odd they don't mention how much upper body strength they’d need to pull themselves up a rope considering they have a naughty word horse for legs.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Since I don't have access to the rules for centaurs I have no idea what you're talking about.

However, it is up to each DM, each table, to figure out how close to realistic they want their game to be. D&D is not particularly realistic, but it can be reality-adjacent.

I'm not telling you how to run your game, don't tell me how to run mine.

The rule was quoted out of Ravnica by @DM Dave1 .

Haven't once told you how to run your game. What I have said is that, as the DM, if the issue with a thing is "that's not realistic", compared to how things work on earth, it's an issue the DM is bringing upon themself.

Any DM is free to do so, and if their table is on board, cool.

But if they're not on board and there's friction, the DM only has themself to blame.