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

[Minigiant]

Do centaurs have hair or mane?

Both
Head- Hair
Neck- Mane
Butt- Tail

Meaning centaurs need to buy 5 different soaps.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So in your session zero, the players and DM comes to the table. They discuss the characters they already created. Then they discuss, as a group, the realm or world they are going to play in? House rules? Starting level, alignment, etc? Then, if there is time, they make the characters.

Traditionally, before the Session Zero I pitch the campaign idea. This can be anything from one-paragraph to a couple of pages that reflects the idea, tone and genre for the campaign. More recently, I will include several pitches and let the players vote on which they want to play (on occasion, several DMs pitch and everybody votes).

I ask players not to come up with a character beforehand, because I want them to keep an open mind about the campaign options, but I don’t enforce this in any way.

During the session zero, I go over the pitch again (some players may not have read or retained the information) and then I go into a deeper dive about the campaign. The focus of this is to get the players the information they need to make their characters, including terrain and likely opponents (for rangers), kingdoms and like (for player hooks) and house rules.

I try to keep this brief so players have more time to come up with characters. Based on their ideas, the players and I can play off each other. For instance, in a Theros game, this is where elf-as-anvilwrought or elf-as-dryad variant would come up.

Generally, by the end of Session Zero, the party won’t be statted up, but everyone should have an idea of each player’s character concept and relation(if any) to the other characters.

 

[Jack Daniel]

So you are saying with some amount of training by a person the bamboo becomes magically able to sustain 150lbs of weight at the top of the shoot?

Once ch'i enters into the equation, we're back to "reality + magic", not physics.

 

[overgeeked]

Player: I want to do X.
GM: That doesn't make sense. You can't.
Player: My characters rules on page Y says I can.

GM (to monk): OK, I'll allow it.
GM (to centaur): Still no.

This is hypocritical by definition. You may want to justify it as being "more real" but allowing it for some and not others is hypocritical.

The DM is the final arbiter of the rules, not the books. If the DM is being consistent in their rulings, i.e. an emphasis on realism or verisimilitude, and not arbitrary the players have three choices. Accept the ruling, try to convince the DM between sessions, or walk.

Without some explanation the centaur is physically incapable of climbing a ladder or a rope. The monk has years of exceedingly specialized training as an explanation of why they get to break physics in particular ways. That’s a consistent DM. Your disagreement with the DM’s call doesn’t make it hypocritical.

 

[Voadam]

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

Cute, but obviously photoshopped from this picture:
View attachment 130655

If it works for you, great. It would break verisimilitude for a lot of people.

It was a picture of a rock climbing horse, in rock climbing gear, pulling itself up by its front hooves, in a technical climb up a negative slope on a cliff or mountain.

I thought it was self evident that it was photoshopped, I did not feel it needed to be explicitly pointed out. Apparently I was wrong.



Horses cannot climb sheer cliffs, even if the D&D rules do not have explicit provisions to say they can't.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You made a general statement that applies to every DM. It's not about me specifically, it applies to every DM that doesn't run their games to your expectations. Don't want people to take as affecting them? Don't make blanket statements.

"Why do you take this as a personal attack?"

"You made a general statement about lots of DMs, of course I would take that as a personal attack"


Sure, okay, that makes no sense, but if you want to be offended I can't stop you.

 

[Oofta]

"Why do you take this as a personal attack?"

"You made a general statement about lots of DMs, of course I would take that as a personal attack"


Sure, okay, that makes no sense, but if you want to be offended I can't stop you.

Well, if you say everybody that wears glasses looks like a dork, would someone that wears glasses potentially be offended? If a statement is directed at all DMs that do X and I do X then yes, I reserve the right to be (very mildly, basically to the point of calling it out but otherwise not giving a furry rat's posterior) offended.

The dodge "describe something that I do as a DM" followed by "well, we didn't mean you personally" gets old.

 

[Mecheon]

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.

I mean...

A ton of races have a Protection from Energy equivilent and that's a third level concentration spell for free. They don't get the ability to switch it, mind, but its there.

I retain my belief that flying isn't all that powerful unless your campaign is a jumping puzzle

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The DM is the final arbiter of the rules, not the books. If the DM is being consistent in their rulings, i.e. an emphasis on realism or verisimilitude, and not arbitrary the players have three choices. Accept the ruling, try to convince the DM between sessions, or walk.

Without some explanation the centaur is physically incapable of climbing a ladder or a rope. The monk has years of exceedingly specialized training as an explanation of why they get to break physics in particular ways. That’s a consistent DM. Your disagreement with the DM’s call doesn’t make it hypocritical.

It's very simple.

The rules allow a 9th level monk to run up a wet, icy, perfectly smooth vertical surface despite the fact that in reality that's not possible. To allow the RAW for the player to do so means bending the laws of physics in your game to let it be done.

The rules for centaurs (should you allow them in your game as a race choice) allow them to make climb checks despite their form at a penalty to the rate of climbing. To allow the RAW for the player to do so means bending the laws of physics in your game to let it be done.

If you, as a GM, choose to start removing PC abilities that are RAW then you open yourself to the charge of hypocracy when a fellow.players powers aren't removed that have a similar effect on the game worlds physics.

So, if you write off the monks power as semi-quasi-supernatural as an explanation, then choose to not using the semi-quasi supernatural as an explanation why a PC centaur can get up a cliff then you are ruling hypocritically to support your worldview.

I'm not saying you CANT choose to do this, I'm just asking that you own up to it being unfair to the players when you do so.

 

[Oofta]

It's very simple.

The rules allow a 9th level monk to run up a wet, icy, perfectly smooth vertical surface despite the fact that in reality that's not possible. To allow the RAW for the player to do so means bending the laws of physics in your game to let it be done.

The rules for centaurs (should you allow them in your game as a race choice) allow them to make climb checks despite their form at a penalty to the rate of climbing. To allow the RAW for the player to do so means bending the laws of physics in your game to let it be done.

If you, as a GM, choose to start removing PC abilities that are RAW then you open yourself to the charge of hypocracy when a fellow.players powers aren't removed that have a similar effect on the game worlds physics.

So, if you write off the monks power as semi-quasi-supernatural as an explanation, then choose to not using the semi-quasi supernatural as an explanation why a PC centaur can get up a cliff then you are ruling hypocritically to support your worldview.

I'm not saying you CANT choose to do this, I'm just asking that you own up to it being unfair to the players when you do so.

Monks are explicitly using chi, a type of magic. Magic overrides reality. Centaurs probably have some inherent magic, being able climb rope ladders has never been one of those.

Just because dragons can breath fire it does not follow that pigs can fly, or that centaurs can ignore their inherent structural limitations.

EDIT: If I ever allow centaurs in my campaign I will let players know that I intend to enforce those physical limitations before they chose races.