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

[Chaosmancer]

We agree then on the gist of DM authority. What I have an issue with is the red herring. The constant pairing of DM authority with bad DMing. Never listening, mocking or being dismissive is bad DMing. I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

We have had other threads not that long ago about DMs feeling pushed around and campaigns spinning out of control because they let the loudest person in the group bully them. I just want to reinforce that while a DM should listen, and sometimes the answer will be "yes" other times it will be "no, but here's what we can do", "no and here's why" or even just plain "no".

In 4E someone wanted to play a Deva which is not on my list. I thought about it, clarified that they would look human (and be unique as far as they knew) and said yes. When someone wanted to play a drow, I've said "no, but let's see if we can figure out something we can figure out." If someone wanted to play a loxodon I'd say "no, and here's why". If someone wanted to play a half-vampire half-dragon the answer would be "no" because it's so far out there that I'm not even sure where to start.

Sure, but we did just have someone tell me, directly, that if a DM is banning something and explicitly being judgemental (which is a type of mocking and being dismissive) that the best thing for me to do is to trust that DM.

So people are saying otherwise. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, but it is happening.


I completely agree with you that the answer can be "no", and I understand DMs who have been bullied into a campaign spiral. I get it.

But I want to reinforce that the answer can be "yes". Your players might have an idea that is better than your idea, or it might be an amazing compliment to your idea. I want to keep pushing people to realizing that that possibility exists, because it can be amazing.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but we did just have someone tell me, directly, that if a DM is banning something and explicitly being judgemental (which is a type of mocking and being dismissive) that the best thing for me to do is to trust that DM.

So people are saying otherwise. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, but it is happening.


I completely agree with you that the answer can be "no", and I understand DMs who have been bullied into a campaign spiral. I get it.

But I want to reinforce that the answer can be "yes". Your players might have an idea that is better than your idea, or it might be an amazing compliment to your idea. I want to keep pushing people to realizing that that possibility exists, because it can be amazing.

Well, I confess to skimming. Suffice to say, I agree there are bad DMs and both sides should keep an open mind.

 

[Remathilis]

Ever tried high jumping to get something from the top shelf? Good luck with that. In any case, I was asking about limitations that affect PCs of all kinds.

So I'll keep the question simple. If the DM is clear up front about issues that could arise in certain situations (or if it's obvious to everyone including the player) based on a PC choice, is it the DM's responsibility to ensure that those situations never arise?

Yes, this is a broader concept than the centaur climbing the stairway. I'm trying to have a discussion about D&D, responsibilities and best practice: if the player knows ahead of time that their PC has limitations, it's not up to the DM to avoid situations where the PC is going to be disadvantaged. Yes or no.

Well... it depends! (You didn't think it was going to be that easy...)

Innately, every character has limitations, and a good DM takes those into account. You wouldn't, for example, set an adventure underwater without providing PCs some ability to breathe or survive. You wouldn't set an adventure in the elemental plane of fire without providing the PCs some resistance to heat. On the other hand, adventures frequently test the limits and resourcefulness of a group of PCs and not every PC can shine in every moment: the iconic "the rogue is scouting" and leaving the low-dex, heavy armored allies behind is a good example.

The key here though, is exactly how often are you going to be limiting your PCs. Borrowing a few 2e example: lizardmen used to require a full waterskin worth of water per day to hydrate their skin or suffer penalties. That doesn't seem like it would exceptionally harsh (waterskins worth of water aren't exactly rare) and it can lead to a few stressful situations (for example, if the PCs are captured by slavers and deprived of their gear, and their lizardfriend starts getting dry). But realistically, how often is that going to come up? Once a campaign? Once a level? Once a session? You could say "it will happen as often as the DM wishes it too" but if every villain knows to go for the waterskin in a fight, it starts to look a little like the DM is being unjustly hard on the PC because they know the lizardman has an easy pain-point to exploit.

So are aforementioned centaur PC (and for argument, its set using the Ravnica-style centaur in a generic FR-like style game) might have some disadvantages on narrow steps, (slowing down movement) or fitting into small spaces (as would a goliath or other "bigger" race) and occasionally they might have to hang back or find alternative means to do something, but ultimately the player wants to play his character and be a part of the game, not constantly be told "no" or make unnecessary ability checks to do mundane things like climb steps. Unless climbing steps in the inn is an integral part of your game, I would rather suspend disbelief and allow the damn centaur to climb them rather than constantly poke at thier pain point because "hey, they chose it".

So no, a DM does not have to avoid disadvantaging the PCs (there is no fun it that) but I think you have to take into consideration that the player WANTS to be part of the game and WANTS to play the cool character they created. Does it make sense that the old keep has hallways wide enough and stairs shallow enough to support a centaur? Maybe not, but it allows the centaur to participate. Does the lizardman have to track every bath he takes daily? It probably won't matter unless you get to that weird "tied up naked in a dungeon" scenario. That's not to say "ignore the penalty" as much to say "don't make it the defining aspect of the PC"

So in short answer, set you guidelines, but if a PC opts to accept the limitation, don't overdo its use just because. I side on the side of "let the PCs do cool things" as long as its not game-breaking, and a centaur climbing steps (or rappelling up a wall) isn't game breaking.

"When consistency gets in the way of samurai gunslingers riding on dinosaurs, it's time for consistency to take a day off." - Barsoomcore.

 

[billd91]

The races getting the callouts are specifically those newer races though. Therein lies the thing.

Numbers show that Tieflings are stupid popular and Dragonborn have their fans. Yet, those are specifically the races being called as 'the weird fantasy ones' despite the clear popularity of them

If we were talking 'weird races' like those weird 'let's attempt to replicate the gith's success' attempts from late 3.5E that eventually lead to the Shadar-kai, well, those ones were weird and I can understand a thread like this when we're talking about beings forming shells of the Far Realm to stop themselves from disintergrating in the atmosphere of our world or god-denying lizardmen. But.... We're talking Tabaxi and Tortles, who've been around since 2E, and Dragonborn, a mechanically weak race who've had their building blocks in play for yonks. Its always these ones that cause problems and not the 'Let's explore the consequences of a vastly increased lifespan' that elves have simply because there's been so much written on elves over time so people have had time for that to sink in.

Define "newer". Tieflings have been around since 2e as well. They just weren't part of the core (nor were tabaxi, tortles, shadar-kai from 3e) so their penetration into the overall D&D-verse culture was spotty for a long time. The advancement of dragonborn and tieflings to core occurred in the 4e time frame which, I think we can acknowledge, was also relatively spotty in its penetration into the D&D-verse culture. Dragonborn and tiefling presence as races in the core rules for a genuinely popular edition of D&D will probably go a long way toward brushing away resistance to incorporating them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why would setting specific rules apply to any other setting? If you want to use them, go for it. You don't get to make that choice for me, though. Those rules as they are written will never make it into my game. First and foremost, centaurs will never be fey in my game.

There are no other player character rules for Centaurs. So, if centaurs as player characters are being discussed, that is what is being discussed.

I'm not sure how to be more clear than that. I don't assume any setting specific changes that make elves immune to Raise Dead, or that Gold Dragonborn explode into energy when they die, so why would we assume that the player character rules have been changed for Centaurs between settings?

When has that ever stopped a DM? If you want a playable centaur in my game, ask. We can work something out.

So... instead of using the rules that exist, you'd want to homebrew rules, then punish the player with the rules you insist on homebrewing?

How does that make anything better for your arguments?

And you will fail each time as those rules do not apply outside of the two campaigns they are printed in.

No.

If I take Changelings and put them into the Forgotten Realms, they do not suddenly become psychic just because Doppelgangers are.

If I take the playable centaur race, and move it into a different setting, the rules associated with that race do not change unless I homebrew it.

And if you are homebrewing a race to make it harder to play, that is on you, not on me.

It's not a deflection. Without a specific action on the part of the PC for me to adjudicate, I have no idea what would happen.

Right, you can't consider the actions until it is actually happening at the table, and no one can assume any actions you might take based on your previous statements, because that would be putting words in your mouth.

So, we can do nothing except ask you endless questions that you will not answer, because it has to be in the moment, at the table.

In other words, it is a deflection.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Difficult, not impossible.

You want to play a centaur? Fine. Have at it.

First, give me a DC 15 DEX check to go up the stairs. Fail by more than 5 and you break a tread because you weigh 2,000 lbs. It's not a question of can a horse walk up stairs; it's a question of whether wooden steps can hold a horse's weight.

For comparison, 29 CFR 1910.24(c) states; "Fixed stairways shall be designed and constructed to carry a load of five times the normal live load anticipated but never of less strength than to carry safely a moving concentrated load of 1,000 pounds" [emphasis added]." Therefore, with respect to the design calculation, the normal live load is spread over the whole stair tread area and the moving concentrated load is considered to be a point load applied at a location on the stair system where the maximum stress would be experienced by the system (the 1000 lbs loading criteria is a minimum).

Now, are this inn's stairs up to OSHA code? (fun exercise: read about moving long gun safes into basements - the safe weighs 1,000 lbs and the people weigh another 600 lbs)

Mazel tov! You made it upstairs. Now, give me a DC19 DEX check to come down the stairs. Why? Again, because you weigh 2,000 lbs and are now trying to walk down those wooden stairs with the lower body of a horse. You are trying to put your hooves on 11" treads (at the deepest) and assuming the risers are even. If the treads are shallower, maybe a DC 20. If the risers are uneven, DC 22.

Can a horse walk up stairs? If the stairs are strong enough to hold a horse, sure, with difficulty. Can a horse walk down stairs? Yes. With extensive training. Without extensive training, it's damned hard to do and a misstep will cause injury to the horse and the stairs.

Like I said, the centaur is going to have a bitch of a time.

Centaurs as a playable race weigh between 600 and 840 lbs, not 2,000.

So, easily under 1,000 lbs even in full gear.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect, the discussion is about far more than that.

That set of stats is a starting point in one part of a discussion that has been far more about GMs and their conceptions of their settings than it is about one race printed in one book. Thus the conception of centaurs is at least as important as the published stats. And the conception is probably more based on the traditional view than the recent book about a setting most of your audience probably has little experience with.

The stats, in fact, really seem to be trying to wedge centaurs into a medium size - after calling them medium, they jack up the carrying capacity and state that they "tower over" other humanoids. Basically, while they are technically medium, they are about as large as you can be and still be in that category. They are an edge case. So, maybe leaning away from the technical size is warranted.

This would be, for example, a space for a player/GM discussion. "You wanna play a centaur? Well, okay, but to meet my conception, there may be some terrain that is easy enough for humanoids that I may call difficult terrain for you...."

Sure, but that gets immediately into the problem, doesn't it?

If I'm going to table and asking to play a centaur, I'm looking at playing a 660 lb, medium sized, fey ancestry being. Those are the rules I have.

If the DM is going to say no, because they are picturing a large, 2,000 lb monstrosity then they aren't saying no to my idea, they are saying no to the idea in their head.


And isn't that a problem? If they are operating under a completely different set of rules, and a completely different set of ideas that I as a player have no way to know, then how can we have a real conversation? Are they banning Dragonborn because they don't have dragons in their world? Because they don't want to deal with flight at level 1? Dragonborn don't have flight, but maybe the DM's conception of them does, so they ban them for a homebrew they made up. Something I have no way of knowing. And if a DM is homebrewing something, then banning it based on that homebrew.... that feels wrong to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It goes to RP.

Think back to Fellowship of the Ring. The Inn of the Prancing Pony. The bartender had to bend over the bar to see the hobbits. Or your other example - DEX checks for humans to avoid tripping over halfling-appropriate barstools.

Again, think back to the beginning of the movie. Gandalf bumps his head on a ceiling beam. This wasn't even scripted; it was McKellan accidentally bumping his head on the hobbit-sized set. Why keep it? Why have that flub? Because it established the size difference.

Would I have a halfling roll for every interaction in a goliath bar? Probably not. But there may very likely be one to add flavor - to establish that the character is physically out of place. Why would I make a centaur roll dice to traverse stairs? It's difficult terrain for him. He's not simply any other character who has a some bonus abilities. He's a character who is going to likely have difficulty interacting with some parts of the environment. It's one of the aspects of his Equine Build.

Sure, but RP goes both ways.

In Middle-Earth, the Hobbits pretty much never leave their homes, so they don't interact with Men.

But in DnD different races of different sizes interact all the time. There would be marked differences in everything to account for that. Even if it is something as a step stool for the shorter races to reach the counter, the merchant who spends those few coppers is going to rake in gold for being the preferred merchant for those people.

One of the most powerful lessons of the good of capitalism, is that if you care about profit, you don't care about appearance, religion, or much else. Which can (can, not does, can, I'm talking about an ideal) lead to merchants being much more tolerant of others, and willing to make small concessions for big gains.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, but the discussion would only apply to centaurs in those specific settings. In a discussion about centaurs in general, those rules only serve as a good place to start the discussion. They can't be assumed to be the default in say the Forgotten Realms.

Again, judging a race on your personal homebrew for that race doesn't help anyone.

Banning changelings because they can cast Detect Thoughts at-will is blatantly wrong. Just because Doppelgangers are the closest Changeling analogue in the Forgotten Realms doesn't mean that we are talking about that statblock instead of the changeling rules.

Shifters are not immune to damage from non-silvered weapons. Yes, Lycanthropes in other settings are, but those rules do not apply to Shifters.

Warforged are not immune to damage from non-adamantium weapons. Yes, Golems in other settings are, but those rules do not apply to warforged.

Minotaurs who are player characters did not commit cannibalism in the name of Baphomet the Horned King. Yes, that is the lore in some settings, but the Player Character version doesn't have that lore.

Centaurs are medium when talking about player characters. Yes, the monster in other settings is large, but that does not apply to the Centaur as a player character.


Making these assumptions, then banning, limiting, or punishing the player based on those decisions is blatantly ignoring the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

There are no other player character rules for Centaurs. So, if centaurs as player characters are being discussed, that is what is being discussed.

Cool, but they don't apply to other settings unless the DM opts into those rules.

I'm not sure how to be more clear than that. I don't assume any setting specific changes that make elves immune to Raise Dead, or that Gold Dragonborn explode into energy when they die, so why would we assume that the player character rules have been changed for Centaurs between settings?

This is a great example. The dragonborn of Krynn have different rules than those in the default game, just like the centaurs of Theros and Ravnica have different rules than those in the default game. Those rules do not apply to the default. Great point!

So... instead of using the rules that exist, you'd want to homebrew rules, then punish the player with the rules you insist on homebrewing?

37 years and not once have I punished a player. This is no exception.

If I take Changelings and put them into the Forgotten Realms, they do not suddenly become psychic just because Doppelgangers are.

Oy. The Fallacy is strong with you in these examples. Well, I better get started.

Changelings are not Dopplegangers and Dopplegangers are not Changelings. However, centaurs ARE centaurs. False Equivalences are False.

If you use the Ravnica/Theros specific centaur rules, you will be causing centaur confusion. Centaurs will suddenly be large, no wait small, fey, no wait monstrosity, elven eared, no wait human eared, move at speed 40, no wait 50, and more.

Shifters are not immune to damage from non-silvered weapons. Yes, Lycanthropes in other settings are, but those rules do not apply to Shifters.

Shifters are not Lycanthropes and Lycanthropes are not Shifters. However, centaurs ARE centaurs. False Equivalences are False.

Warforged are not immune to damage from non-adamantium weapons. Yes, Golems in other settings are, but those rules do not apply to warforged.

Ditto.

Minotaurs who are player characters did not commit cannibalism in the name of Baphomet the Horned King. Yes, that is the lore in some settings, but the Player Character version doesn't have that lore.

We're discussing mechanics, not lore. This is a Red Herring, but it's refreshing that you changed up your fallacies.

 

[Maxperson]

I really think you are putting the proverbial cart before the half-horse here. Or perhaps you can cite for us where WotC says that player race descriptions in setting specific books only apply to those particular settings? I'm thinking that's more about how you like to think about those rules. Happy to be corrected if that really is the official ruling for WotC's publications.

I'd say the RAW player race descriptions in any official WotC publication are the assumed default rules for any D&D 5e campaign. That is, until we hit Session 0 where the DM gets to lay out the parameters of their homebrew world or whatever official setting they are running. If the DM then says, in Session 0, "We're only using books A and B for races" or has some otherwise good reason to ban or alter or add a race for the campaign, well then, now everyone is in the cart together and can decide together whether they all like the fringe on top - or not.

Settings are not race books, though. Settings use the default rules, except where they diverge and include new things, like with centaurs as a race. The PC centaurs of Ravnica and Theros are VERY different both in appearance and in mechanics. To include both in the same setting would be to invite confusion.

Honestly, IMO, any amount of DM homebrew tinkering with what a player race (or class or background) can or cannot do will only lead to confusion and more work down the line. Better to just ban a race than set up a possible situation where the DM needs to remind the table several sessions into the campaign about how to operate their characters according to the DM's homebrew race rules. IME, some players have a hard enough time remembering the RAW of character spells and abilities - it's not worth my effort, or the table's time, to create exceptions to those rules.

Making a change to a single race is far less confusing than including two identically named races that have different mechanics attached. I've also never really had much problems with players needing reminders about what the changes are

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Settings are not race books, though. Settings use the default rules, except where they diverge and include new things, like with centaurs as a race. The PC centaurs of Ravnica and Theros are VERY different both in appearance and in mechanics. To include both in the same setting would be to invite confusion.

Care to post what you see as the differences in mechanics? From what I see in the books, they are EXACTLY the same mechanically (with the exception of some flavor text for alignment and language).

 

[Maxperson]

Care to post what you see as the differences in mechanics? From what I see in the books, they are EXACTLY the same mechanically (with the exception of some flavor text for alignment and language).

Ravnica/Theros: size medium. Default: size large. Ravnica/Theros: Fey. Default: Monstrosity. Ravnica/Theros: Speed 40. Default: Speed 50. Ravnica/Theros: 1 hit die to start. Default: 6 hit dice to start. Ravnica/Theros: average stats 12, 10, 10, 10, 11, 10. Default: 18, 14, 14, 9, 13, 11. Ravnica/Theros: hooves 1d4. Default: hooves 2d6.

 

[Umbran]

Borrowing a few 2e example: lizardmen used to require a full waterskin worth of water per day to hydrate their skin or suffer penalties.

That's among the stupidest things that I have ever heard.

Which I guess is to note that the fact that the rules say it, doesn't mean it is a good idea to be accepted blindly.