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

[Argyle King]

Why doesn't Bilbo pull out an m60 machine gun and kill Smaug?

Surely, if orcs can be biologically engineered and magic rings can be created, belt-fed weapons should be allowed.

Is it a DM fail that Tolkien doesn't allow hobbits to use guns'n'ammo?

 

[Hussar]

See, the thing is, I used to be strongly on the other side of the fence on this issue. I used to agree with the DM's World POV. Then, well, I started trusting my players more.

Take the oft used "no evils". It's repeated so often that it's become a truism - evil campaigns can't function, they fall apart, they don't work. And, I bought into that line of thinking for a long time. I up front banned evil characters for years.

Then, as an experiment, I told the group that I was going to relax the alignment restrictions. It was up to the players to figure out how to work together but, otherwise, any alignment was on the table.

Turns out that evil groups function FAR more effectively than good ones. First off, there's none of the disrespect between the PC's. When you know that that lipping off to the other PC might cause that character to kill you in your sleep, everyone got a LOT more polite. Almost movie mafia type behavior where everyone was respectful and polite, at least to each other's faces. Then, they quickly realized that together they could succeed at their own individual goals faster and better than they could alone. They banded together for protection because they knew that not only did the bad guys want them dead, the good guys probably did too.

After that campaign, I no longer have alignment restrictions in my games. Evil characters, played intelligently, function perfectly well in a good group. And it creates all sorts of interesting interplay between the characters.

So, yes, I came to the conclusion of "trust your players over your own preferences" through experience. Your own preferences and assumptions likely have never really been tested. Let them go and your game will be a lot more fun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why doesn't Bilbo pull out an m60 machine gun and kill Smaug?

Surely, if orcs can be biologically engineered and magic rings can be created, belt-fed weapons should be allowed.

Is it a DM fail that Tolkien doesn't allow hobbits to use guns'n'ammo?

This isn't a compelling ruductio ad absurdum, like you probably think it is.

The case isn't comparable to the topic of the thread.

 

[Argyle King]

This isn't a compelling ruductio ad absurdum, like you probably think it is.

The case isn't comparable to the topic of the thread.

The current conversation is about adding imaginary elements.

Some are arguing that anything a player can come up with should be considered.
Others are saying (I think) that -even in a fantastic setting- certain things fit and certain things don't.

It's a relevant question.

Also:

What is the balance issue, btw? There have been threads on the subject, but as far as I can tell, no one has ever made a halfway compelling argument that flying races are especially powerful. Aarakokra, particularly, are a bit weak. For Tieflings, trading all their magic for a medium armor only fly speed is a bad trade. You're losing power.

Flight is a force multiplier in combat. That's why having an airforce (especially against an enemy which does not have one) tends to be a big deal.

Typically, a combat unit (in D&D) is limited to 8 options for movement.

ooo
oxo
ooo

Flight multiplies those options into a 3rd dimension of movement, allowing for the use of tactics and strategies which would otherwise not be possible.

Outside of combat, the utility of at-will flight is also useful. Being able to fly in a straight line from my home to work would be far different (and easier and less time-consuming) than being earth-bound and needing to walk/drive/etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So...if the DM includes something that's not in the books, that's cheating? Wow. Okay. So nothing that's not from a WOTC approved officially published book. No homebrew anything. Only published modules run exactly as written with no variation because that's cheating. FFS. That sounds like an incredibly imaginative and creative game you play. Thank FLAPPERDOODLE your opinions about how I run my games are irrelevant. I know the internet is the place to just have opinions at other people, but this is ridiculous.

1) Watch the language, please.
2) Disagreeing with other posters is fine. Being disagreeable when doing so isn’t. Don’t make a habit of it.

 

[Argyle King]

Further thoughts on the flight issue:

Consider, why (in Chess) the queen is a stronger piece (and produces more threat) than a rook or a bishop.

 

[cbwjm]

One thing I don't worry about, even if working off a small group of races, is flight speed. If I say aarakocra are available then they are available from level one.

 

[Maxperson]

See, the thing is, I used to be strongly on the other side of the fence on this issue. I used to agree with the DM's World POV. Then, well, I started trusting my players more.

Take the oft used "no evils". It's repeated so often that it's become a truism - evil campaigns can't function, they fall apart, they don't work. And, I bought into that line of thinking for a long time. I up front banned evil characters for years.

Then, as an experiment, I told the group that I was going to relax the alignment restrictions. It was up to the players to figure out how to work together but, otherwise, any alignment was on the table.

Turns out that evil groups function FAR more effectively than good ones. First off, there's none of the disrespect between the PC's. When you know that that lipping off to the other PC might cause that character to kill you in your sleep, everyone got a LOT more polite. Almost movie mafia type behavior where everyone was respectful and polite, at least to each other's faces. Then, they quickly realized that together they could succeed at their own individual goals faster and better than they could alone. They banded together for protection because they knew that not only did the bad guys want them dead, the good guys probably did too.

After that campaign, I no longer have alignment restrictions in my games. Evil characters, played intelligently, function perfectly well in a good group. And it creates all sorts of interesting interplay between the characters.

So, yes, I came to the conclusion of "trust your players over your own preferences" through experience. Your own preferences and assumptions likely have never really been tested. Let them go and your game will be a lot more fun.

Trust your players and DM's world are not mutually exclusive positions. I do both in my game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The current conversation is about adding imaginary elements.

Some are arguing that anything a player can come up with should be considered.
Others are saying (I think) that -even in a fantastic setting- certain things fit and certain things don't.

It's a relevant question.

It’s not a like case. So, no, it isn’t.

Also:



Flight is a force multiplier in combat. That's why having an airforce (especially against an enemy which does not have one) tends to be a big deal.

In IRL wars, sure.

Typically, a combat unit (in D&D) is limited to 8 options for movement.

ooo
oxo
ooo

Flight multiplies those options into a 3rd dimension of movement, allowing for the use of tactics and strategies which would otherwise not be possible.

Sure, it’s useful. So is a party member that is never actually asleep and can’t be put to sleep, even by magic.
Hell, I’ve seen more DM plans laid waste by elves and gnomes than by fliers.
In a fight, the flier has less cover than their targets, most of the time, can’t go too far away without being in real danger from isolation, and if they go high enough to get out of danger from the ground, they’re potentially putting the whole group in danger from large predators anywhere within several dozen miles, not to mention again, if they’re hundred+ feet up, they have no cover against enemy archers.

it’s not more powerful than other races.

Outside of combat, the utility of at-will flight is also useful. Being able to fly in a straight line from my home to work would be far different (and easier and less time-consuming) than being earth-bound and needing to walk/drive/etc.

Another example of distinctly different types of cases. You don’t need to have 3-5 of your coworkers, who can’t fly, arrive at your home at close to the same time as you, or close enough to help you fight off some home invaders when you get there. You can certainly spot them and help them plot the best route, avoid cops and traffic jams, etc, though. It’s useful, but it isn’t a game changer, outside of 1-PC games or games where it’s all fliers.

 

[overgeeked]

What is the balance issue, btw? There have been threads on the subject, but as far as I can tell, no one has ever made a halfway compelling argument that flying races are especially powerful. Aarakokra, particularly, are a bit weak. For Tieflings, trading all their magic for a medium armor only fly speed is a bad trade. You're losing power.

Hell, I ran a game with an Kensei/Rogue with Mobile, and Sharpshooter, and...it was fine. I didn't change encounters, exploration, or anything, to "account" for them, any more than I would for a Dwarf.

I mean...thinking about the DnD world...I've had archers and falconers in most enemy groups since we played 4e, so maybe that makes a difference, but...it's not a big change.

Too easily get around obstacles, mainly. Why is fly a 3rd-level spell with concentration and a duration of 10 minutes? If it's so nothing-burger, it should be a cantrip. It's a permanent thing for creatures who have a fly speed. It's getting a permanent, non-interruptable 3rd-level spell for free at 1st level that can be used at-will. Would you allow fireball as a bonus-action cantrip? Lightning bolt? Animate dead? Counterspell? Dispel magic? Spirit guardians? I'm going to guess no.

Who is suggesting no bad? No one has suggested that the 1/4 speed climbing is too great a limitation. No one has said that centaur should simply be able to just do whatever anyone else can do, without any thought to their physiology.

Everyone objecting to any restrictions beyond what's in the book. And the player I had who threw a fit when I suggested things might not be quite as easy for their proposed centaur character as for others in the group. He literally rage quit because he couldn't play a centaur without having to deal with the bad.

But as can be seen in this thread, the RAW slower climbing is perfectly reasonable.

For people who think it's reasonable, yes. For those who think it's ridiculous, not so much.

It's well within the band of reasonableness that contains the rest of the game as written, at least.

Again, some of the rules as written are dumb. So they get changed. See up to one hour of combat not interrupting a long rest for one rather absurd example.

How is it easier to maintain verisimilitude by restricting them even further, rather than listening to the player with the explanation for how they can work?

Because there's no argument for breaking physics besides "it's magic". I'm fine with magic, generally speaking. But the more nonsensical and the more often "it's magic" comes in to explain obvious breaks in physics, the less interested I am in playing or running. When I want to play Toon, I will.

Why would you rehash the discussion, ever? You figure out the explanation for how centaurs climb once, and then just...carry on play.

Again, if this thread is any indicator, constantly. There's been a dozen pages since I first posted in this thread and not many people seem to actually read the posts. I've had to post and repost the same explanation a dozen times to various people. At the table...every time climbing comes up there's going to be another argument unless everyone happens to agree with me and my ruling. Which is unlikely. There is an explanation, and a simple one. Centaurs can't break physics by climbing ladders or ropes. The end.

What possible headache?

Having to have the argument again and again and again. Centaurs can't climb ladders or ropes. There. I'm the DM and I made the call. Now, are you going to argue with me about it or are we going to carry on with the game?