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

[overgeeked]

I've had DM's claim that the Forge Priest getting a magic +1 weapon at 1st level was too powerful. Fair enough. We played the campaign and took away the Forge Priest's 1st level magic weapon. In a 11 level campaign, having that ability would have made a difference in exactly one encounter. The DM was absolutely convinced that this ability was so overpowered that it had to be stripped from the character.

One encounter. Out of 11 levels and, what, a hundred or more combat encounters?

That +1 would have effected every single round of every single fight. It’s not just permission to hit or damage certain monsters who require magic to be hit or damaged, it’s also a 5% bonus to hit every single monster in the game with a commensurate increase in damage, both from the increased hitting and the actual +1 to damage the magic weapon has. Something that other PCs likely don’t have at 1st level. It’s something they likely won’t get until the DM starts handing out magic items. And in 5E where magic items aren’t assumed by the math of the game, it could be a long time or never before other PCs get that same bonus.

This is why I tend to listen to DMs when they say something is unbalanced as opposed to a player saying it’s balanced. Players tend to want to get everything they can to stack the deck in their favor as much as possible, so they tend to argue that everything is “balanced” as long as it gives them an edge. They also tend to argue that things are “unfair” or “cheating” or “unbalanced” when it goes against them or makes their characters less than perfect.

My anecdotal experience of course. But it’s still my experience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That +1 would have effected every single round of every single fight. It’s not just permission to hit or damage certain monsters who require magic to be hit or damaged, it’s also a 5% bonus to hit every other monster in the game with a commensurate increase in damage, both from the increased hitting and the actual +1 to damage the magic weapon has. Something that other PCs likely don’t have at 1st level. It’s something they likely won’t get until the DM starts handing out magic items. And in 5E where magic items aren’t assumed by the math of the game, it could be a long time or never before other PCs get that same bonus.

This is why I tend to listen to DMs when they say something is unbalanced as opposed to a player saying it’s balanced. Players tend to want to get everything they can to stack the deck in their favor as much as possible, so they tend to argue that everything is “balanced” as long as it gives them an edge. They also tend to argue that things are “unfair” or “cheating” or “unbalanced” when it goes against them or makes them less than perfect.

My anecdotal experience of course. But it’s still my experience.

Your players sound like selfish powergaming-obsessed jerks, from this post.

Definitely doesn’t fit my experiences. My players are as likely as I am, as the DM, to point out a problem of balance in their favor.

 

[Maxperson]

I have been climbing with enough goats to know how to read the rocks. There are safe passages all through here. One I would let a 12 year climb. Just because the camera does the job of meshing it, doesn't mean it is not there. All the billygoat videos and pictures are the same type of area that I would have players roll a constitution saving throw to avoid being scared more than I would an athletics or acrobatics check.
But climbing is different than bouldering or scaling. Goats can scale. In fact, they are great at it. They can boulder with the best of them. However, they cannot climb.

I think you're getting a little caught up in the details here. D&D doesn't have scaling vs. climbing. If you can get to the top of the cliff, you climbed it.

The issue of goats vs. centaurs are the hooves and body builds. Goats are much more slender, allowing them to lean closer to the cliffs on narrow ledges, and get their oppositional feet over to the narrow ledge. They also have small cloven hooves that come to points, allowing them to dig into cracks with them. This is what allows them to scale(climb) like that. Centaurs on the other hand are about double(or more) the width of the goat, have wide rounded single toed hooves that can't fit on narrow ledges and into cracks, etc. There's no way that they are scaling(climbing) like a mountain goat.

 

[embee]

There's no way that they are scaling(climbing) like a mountain goat.

And we have now come to the point in this debate where it is necessary to call upon Monty Python for a ruling.

"It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut. Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?"

So perhaps an African centaur could scale a mountain but not a European centaur and, besides, African centaurs are non-migratory.

 

[billd91]

That +1 would have effected every single round of every single fight. It’s not just permission to hit or damage certain monsters who require magic to be hit or damaged, it’s also a 5% bonus to hit every single monster in the game with a commensurate increase in damage, both from the increased hitting and the actual +1 to damage the magic weapon has. Something that other PCs likely don’t have at 1st level. It’s something they likely won’t get until the DM starts handing out magic items. And in 5E where magic items aren’t assumed by the math of the game, it could be a long time or never before other PCs get that same bonus.

So? A PC with 2 points more in Strength (or Dex) gets the same effect of a slightly increased chance to hit and slightly increased damage and that isn't considered unbalancing. The ability to do full damage to creatures resistant to damage from non-magical weapons will have a bigger impact and make those combats a little easier than it would be if nobody had a magical weapon. But even then... so?

I won't deny that there are some things that might be considered too good at 1st level - flight, types of teleportation powers, etc because they can fundamentally change the nature of the game's challenges. But a simple magic weapon is highly unlikely to do so.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I love that scene. It is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote this sentence. I think you might have overlooked the bolded words. I didn't make it stand out, so it was easy to do.

"Let all characters jump from tree top to tree top without any ability or training."

In that scene, the two are masters. People awe at their abilities. They are not a common centaur that can climb a ladder. Again, I gave suggestions on how to remedy the problem via magic, if your table needs it. I also said you could just gloss over it. That's cool. But - it is also okay to say a centaur cannot climb a ladder due to physics. Nothing wrong with that either.

What is not okay is someone trying their hardest to not understand the actual physical reason a DM might make such a ruling. And then ignoring the evidence and implying they are wrong. Their evidence is just as compelling as the other sides. Refusing to acknowledge it seems like a not-so-nice move.

So here is where you and I are viewing the exact same thing, and with much of the same assumptions, but come to a totally different conclusion.

1. It is a physical fact (in our world) that a horse cannot climb a rope ladder because of the laws of physics.
2. It is a physical fact (in our world) that a human being cannot run up a bamboo shoot and perch atop it because of the laws of physics.
3. You and I both, as a GM, would allow a PC human to run up a bamboo shoot because D&D physics isn't real physics.
4. You and I, as GMs, disagree about allowing a PC centaur to climb a rope ladder because we don't agree on whether or not D&D physics would allow it.

It is TOTALLY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS AS A GM to tell the centaur player that they are never going to be able to climb a ladder if that is how you feel that your game should run, but then allowing a human player to run vertically up a stalk of bamboo makes your centaur position hypocritical.

 

[Maxperson]

So here is where you and I are viewing the exact same thing, and with much of the same assumptions, but come to a totally different conclusion.

1. It is a physical fact (in our world) that a horse cannot climb a rope ladder because of the laws of physics.
2. It is a physical fact (in our world) that a human being cannot run up a bamboo shoot and perch atop it because of the laws of physics.
3. You and I both, as a GM, would allow a PC human to run up a bamboo shoot because D&D physics isn't real physics.
4. You and I, as GMs, disagree about allowing a PC centaur to climb a rope ladder because we don't agree on whether or not D&D physics would allow it.

It is TOTALLY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS AS A GM to tell the centaur player that they are never going to be able to climb a ladder if that is how you feel that your game should run, but then allowing a human player to run vertically up a stalk of bamboo makes your centaur position hypocritical.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. We all draw realism lines in different places for different things. In this case he draws the line in one place for a human and in another place for the very physically different centaur. For hypocrisy to come into play, the two would have to be equivalent. Say a human being allowed to, but an aasimar being refused.

Personally, without some sort of spider climb or other magical/quasi-magical ability, I wouldn't let either the human or aasimar run up a stalk of bamboo.

 

[overgeeked]

So? A PC with 2 points more in Strength (or Dex) gets the same effect of a slightly increased chance to hit and slightly increased damage and that isn't considered unbalancing. The ability to do full damage to creatures resistant to damage from non-magical weapons will have a bigger impact and make those combats a little easier than it would be if nobody had a magical weapon. But even then... so?

I won't deny that there are some things that might be considered too good at 1st level - flight, types of teleportation powers, etc because they can fundamentally change the nature of the game's challenges. But a simple magic weapon is highly unlikely to do so.

The trouble is the forge cleric gets both. They gain the benefit of that +1 to-hit and damage and they get to not put as high of a score in the relevant stats, instead they get the effect of 2 points in STR/DEX while also putting more points in say WIS to be better at all their cleric stuff. The balance is having to choose where the points go. The forge cleric doesn't have to make that choice. They get both at 1st level.

The 5% increased chance to hit is a bit misleading. It generally doesn't mean a 5% increase in damage. It does mean that over the life of a character 1-20. But it's a huge boost in the short term. You make 100 attacks and 5 hit that wouldn't have otherwise. You then get full attack damage from those extra hits. Not an extra 5% damage.

And it's not a problem if you only view it in isolation. Just giving one character an extra 5% chance to hit doesn't seem like a big deal...sure. But Blessing of the Forge doesn't exist in isolation. Look what the cleric already has. Specifically the forge cleric at 1st-level. Two 1st-level spell slots. Max possible WIS. Proficiency with all armor and simple weapons. You're adding searing smite to their spell list and it's always prepared. Clerics generally, and some clerics specifically already have too much. They don't need to be even better. And the magic weapon isn't just a magic weapon...it's any weapon they touch after a short long rest is now a magic weapon. Or any armor they touch is now magic armor. And it's not limited to you. The forge cleric can hand that item off to someone else and they can use it. And because of the way it's worded...there's no attunement. That's a lot.

 

[FrozenNorth]

How on earth is that an 'elf' in any meaningful sense? It is a living statue, not an elf.

“Meaningful” in this context, means meaningful to the player who wishes to play the elf.

If the player wishes to play a graceful character, or one with the physical aesthetic of an elf, the anvilwrought background is perfect for the type of elf he wants.

If instead, the player wants to develop the link with nature aspect of the elf, elf-as-variant-dryad (as also suggested by Chaosmancer) would probably be the better way to go.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That horse's mane suggests to me that this is notably photoshopped.

The better argument about hooves and climbing is goats

View attachment 130654

Whist a mountain goat can climb a cliff better than a human can, it can't climb a rope...