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

[Maxperson]

sounds like magic ta me.

Show me where it specifies magical and I will concede the point.

 

[Maxperson]

Could you quote the section of the book that says Centaurs have large single toe hooves? I remember that the Tabaxi claws were a DM call, because the book didn't say. I don't see anything in the Ravnica book that says what type of hooves Centaurs have either.

Sure! Page 15 of the Ravnica book where it says that they have the lower bodies of horses and not goats. Unlike cats, which can have claws that vary, horses only have one type of hoof. Further, the picture has a horses hoof in it. The MM also shows them with horse hooves.

That said, the MM Centaur isn't fey, so the Ravnica centaur rules only apply to Ravnica centaurs, not any centaurs in other systems unless the DM adopts those rules for his game.

 

[Scott Christian]

You accept one set of physical laws being broken by the rules, but refuse to accept the other. And then, and this was the part that started this debate, blame the player for wanting you to follow the rules. Or, blame them for getting upset that you are nerfing their character because you disagree with the rules.

Where have I done this?
Here is what I said:

Hmm... I guess my view is still not clear.
Number 1 - agreed.
Number 2 - agreed.
Number 3 - agreed.
Number 4 - disagree with your premise we disagree. I do not disagree with you.

The DM is totally within their rights to allow a centaur to climb a rope ladder, castle wall, and run on bamboo stalks.

Do you see here where I specifically said a DM can allow this. I have even stated I would follow the rule if a player showed me.

But, the DM also has the right to say "No, that doesn't make sense." DMs make these judgement calls all the time in almost every session. Are you going to tell me you find the game more enjoyable with the person that constantly tries to correct their judgement:
Player: I hide behind the table.
DM: That will give you partial coverage.
Player: Well, technically it should be full coverage because...

Player: I am going to place the bag of sand on the trap while taking the golden skull.
DM: It will be a DC 15 sleight of hand check. Or if you want, a DC 15 acrobatics check. Your call.
Player: Well, technically it should be 13 because...

Player: I am going to try and light the forest on fire with fireball.
DM: All right. It is damp, but there is a chance it can work. You will need at least 25 points of damage for it to spark and begin to catch on.
Player: Well technically it should only be 20 points of damage because...

Centaurs is a judgement call, like everything. The DM might allot them a lesser movement penalty if they get a running start. They might allow them to not even roll a climb check because these are stacked boulders and they are on four legs which provide more stability. They might not even have them make a check on a windy ledge because of their weight and four legs. AND the DM might say, you don't have the strength to climb the ladder up to the crows nest. For you, that climb is impossible. None of this is wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

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 wouldn't allow it, especially since it's a Ravnica specific rule. The MM centaurs are not fey, they are monstrosities and size large. I don't run Ravnica and never will.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Well, if you run combat silly like that, then I can see the point. However, hit points are such that the hammer doesn't even impact them most of the time and damage is so slight until you hit 0, that when it comes to a giant hammer, the hits are probably not even glancing blows. I agree with you on rogues being able to crit oozes, though. I'm probably going to remove that ability in the next campaign I run. Undead and constructs have joints and other weak spots, so those can be critted. And just so you don't think I take more than I give, in 3e I gave rogues the ability to sneak attack constructs and undead, but kept oozes as a no no.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's not a conscious choice.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

According to some of the logic on here, there are no rules in the MM that says they can't climb. In fact, they get +6 to their athletics. And the MM states very clearly, that a climb speed simply means they don't have the penalty associated with climbing. That is, unless we are assumed to believe that if it is left off, it can't climb at all.
But that wouldn't make sense, because goats wouldn't be able to climb. You know, because they don't have a climb speed. And deer and elk wouldn't be able swim either because they don't have a swim speed. But I have seen them swim as well as bears and elephants. But none of them have a swim speed. And by that logic, a constrictor snake wouldn't be able to climb. And frogs can't climb! Again, no climb speed listed. Man, the MM is crazy!
Or they intended people to use common sense, and were like, no DM is going to have a centaur climb a castle wall. But we showed them!

 

[Minigiant]

Show me where it specifies magical and I will concede the point.

PC centaurs are fey which are blatantly magical according to the MM.

MM says monstrosities are not truly magical and created by magical experiments or magic curses.

Centaurs in D&D are magical beings.

 

[Maxperson]

PC centaurs are fey which are blatantly magical according to the MM.

That fails to show what I asked for. Magical creatures are not magical in everything that they do. You need to show me where that ability is explicitly magical.

Edit: They aren't even magical beings in the MM. Monstrosity only says that some of them are created by magic, not that they ARE magic, so your argument fails completely anywhere outside of Ravnica, where it failed due to magical creatures not being magical in everything that they do.

 

[Minigiant]

That fails to show what I asked for. Magical creatures are not magical in everything that they do. You need to show me where that ability is explicitly magical.

Edit: They aren't even magical beings in the MM. Monstrosity only says that some of them are created by magic, not that they ARE magic, so your argument fails completely anywhere outside of Ravnica, where it failed due to magical creatures not being magical in everything that they do.

That's impossible.
Features are not tagged as magical in 5e like in 3e (Su or Spell-like) or 4e (non Martial powers).

The MM says monstrosities are not natural.
Now since default D&D doesn't have modern or fantasy genetic science, the only way you get a half-elf half-horse in non-futuristic D&D is magic.