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

[doctorbadwolf]

Not to "well actually you" but, if could work with enough rope.

Typo. It was supposed to read “can’t” not “can”.

Because yeah, of course you Shibari a Centaur up the side of a cliff. It’s preposterous to propose otherwise.
Likewise, you can use rope to make the climb easier, changing effective weight distribution and allowing the centaur to more easily leverage their hind legs on the climb.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Without it giving anything other than "slow going," it's not magic. It's balance silliness.

(Assuming I was playing a centaur monk in your campaign) Would you allow me to run up a rope using my 9th level power or would you disallow that as well?

If you did allow me, does that mean that its then possible for a centaur to climb a rope in your universe?

 

[Scott Christian]

You say this is "fair" but immediately I see something that frustrates me. "In your honest opinion" FR is a kitchen sink, and therefore a mess.

But, didn't you say in your first point that there is no right and wrong for individual tables? Yet, one style is a mess. Messes aren't good. So, your honest opinion is that there is a better way. Your way. Because the other way is a mess.

So, in one part you present yourself as the reasonable party who doesn't judge the other side... and then you judge us. And I know it is just your opinion, I know it is just your preference, but maybe you could try to stop judging us while at the same time you say you aren't judging us?

Show me where I judge your table please. I stated FR, a world you had no hand in, was a mess. I said FR, a product of the game company, is a mess. If a table (which I am one of them), chooses to play it, that is okay. There is nothing wrong with that. It is fun. But, imo, it is a mess. I have not called anyone's creations here or their tables a mess. In fact, I have insisted that most of the people on here probably clean FR up.

So if you read it that way (that I am judging someone's table, you misinterpreted.

Here is the question you keep asking:

That one I bolded and underlined? That is the single reason being asked about. Every single other thing you listed? Pointless to the question because the question was "Is the reason "Because I don't like it" a good reason to ban something?".

When have I not answered this. I even answered it in my list. I believe if the guidelines are not clear and the DM is just banning it because they don't like it, that's wrong. I have stated this many times.

What I see from you is, that gets stated, and then you switch the debate to something else, like suddenly now, many of those reasons are "poor." Which really brings me to this:

Not sure why you think this is "deep down" when I have flat said that as a DM I try to accommodate my players. Do you think you are revealing some secret to me about my own preferences?

I am not revealing any secret. I am noting in my response that you change your answers, and when they change, they always lean towards the DM changing, not the player. Like I said, we agree on most of it. The DM should be clear. People should communicate. The DM should listen and be open. The player should respect the DM's work. The DM should respect the player's work. But once you go down the road of debating every single reason a DM can give for excluding a race, then you are not being open. You just want the DM to bend.
I admit a DM that has put in the work should be open minded. I also admit that they have the final say, and if it doesn't work for them, case closed. The player can make a different character.
But this forum has had that debate too. Players only being able to follow one character concept. I feel for those players. That has to be difficult. But, in D&D, the DM has the final say, especially if they are running their world.
But we have shown this by quoting the DMG, the PHB, Tasha's and Xanathar's. Yet, somehow, the DM not bending has been called "edgelord," "unimaginative," "pissy," "poor," "tapped," "diluted," and "dicks."
So take those words and go back to me calling FR a "mess." A mess because there are so many things in it. See if those words have the same connotation as, "unimaginative" or "pissy."

As a DM, why is it wrong of me to bend? Just because I put in a lot of work, work I did not need to put in?

I mean, if I didn't want to build my world.... I wouldn't. There are worlds that exist, or I could run in "Generica". I've got tons of options. But, because I put in unnecessary work for my own sake I need to suddenly become inflexible? That I need to know make my players "wrong" for even asking to change the things I built, which I build solely for my own sake?

I don't get it

For the hundredth time, it is not wrong for the DM to bend. They can and should - whether they put in the work or not. But, a DM that truly has put in the work, and a DM who hasn't, also has the right to say no to a race. I personally prefer the reasons where a DM has logic based on their work. But, I accept no from a DM who has not done that.

And if you are also asking why it's wrong for the DM to bend because the DM put in hundreds of hours of work into their world - why would a player want them to? Why would a player who is considerate of work and imagination, want their DM to have to do twenty more hours of work so they can play a single race for one campaign? Who is being selfish? It sounds like the player.

 

[Minigiant]

Without it giving anything other than "slow going," it's not magic. It's balance silliness.

sounds like magic ta me.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I am with Sabathius on this. If the 5e rules really do state that, then I would use those. I would also make sure to have a bunch of players think they can escape centaurs by climbing trees or something, then have the centaurs start climbing said trees. And, I would also allow any other creature with similar physiology be able to climb. This would be fun for a few sessions in a canyonland expedition.
In all honesty, most of my players would revolt even after showing them the rule. Oh well. Can't win them all.

 

[Scott Christian]

Without it giving anything other than "slow going," it's not magic. It's balance silliness.

This is the real answer for why centaurs can climb. Must make things easier for players to feel engaged. I am not against it, but the rule is silly. I would use it though, especially if a player showed it to me in game.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I am with Sabathius on this. If the 5e rules really do state that, then I would use those. I would also make sure to have a bunch of players think they can escape centaurs by climbing trees or something, then have the centaurs start climbing said trees. And, I would also allow any other creature with similar physiology be able to climb. This would be fun for a few sessions in a canyonland expedition.
In all honesty, most of my players would revolt even after showing them the rule. Oh well. Can't win them all.

Centaurs, as the race presented in the Ravnica book, have a special rule that allows them to climb. You can choose to ignore that rule if you like, but you are taking something away from the player that they should have the ability to do.

Centaurs, as the monster presented in the Monster Manual, do not have a special rule that allows them to climb so letting them make climb checks as a PC centaur can if your call as the GM and doesn't affect the players at all.

Not all PCs are created with the same powers and abilities as the monster entries of the same race, but i'm guessing you knew that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, but those rules are dumb. Because they break suspension of disbelief.

Sorry, but that is voluntary. RPGs are chock full of totally unrealistic, imaginary, impossible things. If you choose one of those things and decide that THIS is too much, that it destroys the illusion for you....well, that's on you.

 

[Maxperson]

(Assuming I was playing a centaur monk in your campaign) Would you allow me to run up a rope using my 9th level power or would you disallow that as well?

If you did allow me, does that mean that its then possible for a centaur to climb a rope in your universe?

No, I wouldn't. And now that I'm home I wouldn't allow a humanoid monk to do it, either. It explicitly says vertical surfaces, which means wider areas like walls, large enough trees, etc. Basically, if you can get all of your feet solidly down on the surface, that ability would come into play. That does meant that a humanoid monk would have some surfaces they could run up, that a centaur couldn't because they would have two feet and half their body flailing in the wind.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

This is the real answer for why centaurs can climb. Must make things easier for players to feel engaged. I am not against it, but the rule is silly. I would use it though, especially if a player showed it to me in game.

I agree with you that its silly if you were watching it happen in real life, but its no sillier than some dude putting on some armor so that the fire giants hammer will glance off them safely or the sneaky guy hiding in the shadows with a shortbow can consistently shoot arrows into a giant cube of jello in JUST THE RIGHT SPOT so that it falls apart faster.