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

[Umbran]

This is a Red Herring, but it's refreshing that you changed up your fallacies.

Please keep it cool and respectful. Please.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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!

Except the Dragonborn of Krynn don't have rules in this edition of the game. That is my point. You are adding rules to a playable race, then assuming your homebrew is some standard definition just because the Monster Manual version is different and more common across the games.

But we aren't talking about a Monster Manual Statblock. We are talking about the rules for players, the only playable centaur rules that exist. Whether they were made for a setting or not is irrelevant to the fact that those are the rules for playing a Centaur character.

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.

Actually, in Eberron the setting where Changelings exist, they are considered a subrace of Doppelgangers. In fact, some theories are that Doppelgangers are just evil changelings/

No False Equivalence at all.

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

They are related. Have differences sure, but the closest equivalent in a different plane of existence would be a lycanthrope. It is why the Shifters are called "were-touched" by some.

A stretch, but so is assuming that a Fey Centaur and the a Monstrous Centaur are interchangeable just because they share a name.

Ditto.

Construct, made by magic.

Other version in the game other than golems? Helmed Horrors , Cadaver Collectors, Retrievers, and Clockwork Monsters all have that same resistance. Scarecrows and Steel Predators just have resistance to non-magical. Shield Guardians get regeneration.

I mean, you can't argue that Warforged aren't magical constructs, and you can't argue that magical constructs don't often get resistances to normal damage, so clearly a Warforged must as well, right?

Oh, wait, I'm overreaching. It only applies when they share a name, despite being obviously noted to be different beings entirely. After all, one is a Medium Fey Creature the other is a Large Monstrosity. The Medium Fey Creature is a player option. The Large Monstrosity is not.

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

Oh, really? You just want to talk about mechanics?

Hmm, interesting.

You know there is a playable Minotaur race, right? It is medium, they have a walking speed of 30 ft, their horns do 1d6+str damage, they have a goring rush that requires them to move 20 ft and makes a bonus action attack, they get a bonus action shove with their horns, and proficiency in either intimidation or persuasion.

But there is also a version in the monster manual. It is large, has a speed of 40 ft, they get reckless attack, labrynthine recall, and their charge only takes 10 ft while also pushing and increasing the damage of their horns by 2d8, oh, their horns also naturally deal 2d8+strength mod.

So, if a player in a Forgotten Realms game came to you and said they wanted to play a minotaur, you'd tell them they have to be a large Monstrosity with 40 ft of movement and a natural weapon that does 2d8 damage? That, is the Forgotten Realms version, the one whose lore I mentioned.

It isn't the player option though,and since the Baphomet lore is relatively new, I bet if I dug through the Forgotten Realms lore, I'd fine a friendly minotaur.

But, here is a repeat of your argument. There is a player option, and a monster statblock. And they are not identical.

Just like with Goblins.
Just like with Bugbears
Just like with Hobgoblins
Just like with Lizardfolk
Just like with Kenku
Just like with Yuan-Ti Purebloods
Just like with Kobolds


The Monster Statblock is not the player option. It doesn't matter if one or the other is setting specific. One is the player option, and when talking about a player playing a character, you are talking about the player option.

Stop conflating them. This isn't confusion, this is you blatantly choosing to make the Playable Centaur race something it isn't, just so you can make them seem more unreasonable to attempt to play.

 

[Maxperson]

Except the Dragonborn of Krynn don't have rules in this edition of the game. That is my point. You are adding rules to a playable race, then assuming your homebrew is some standard definition just because the Monster Manual version is different and more common across the games.

But we aren't talking about a Monster Manual Statblock. We are talking about the rules for players, the only playable centaur rules that exist. Whether they were made for a setting or not is irrelevant to the fact that those are the rules for playing a Centaur character.



Actually, in Eberron the setting where Changelings exist, they are considered a subrace of Doppelgangers. In fact, some theories are that Doppelgangers are just evil changelings/

No False Equivalence at all.



They are related. Have differences sure, but the closest equivalent in a different plane of existence would be a lycanthrope. It is why the Shifters are called "were-touched" by some.

A stretch, but so is assuming that a Fey Centaur and the a Monstrous Centaur are interchangeable just because they share a name.



Construct, made by magic.

Other version in the game other than golems? Helmed Horrors , Cadaver Collectors, Retrievers, and Clockwork Monsters all have that same resistance. Scarecrows and Steel Predators just have resistance to non-magical. Shield Guardians get regeneration.

I mean, you can't argue that Warforged aren't magical constructs, and you can't argue that magical constructs don't often get resistances to normal damage, so clearly a Warforged must as well, right?

Oh, wait, I'm overreaching. It only applies when they share a name, despite being obviously noted to be different beings entirely. After all, one is a Medium Fey Creature the other is a Large Monstrosity. The Medium Fey Creature is a player option. The Large Monstrosity is not.



Oh, really? You just want to talk about mechanics?

Hmm, interesting.

You know there is a playable Minotaur race, right? It is medium, they have a walking speed of 30 ft, their horns do 1d6+str damage, they have a goring rush that requires them to move 20 ft and makes a bonus action attack, they get a bonus action shove with their horns, and proficiency in either intimidation or persuasion.

But there is also a version in the monster manual. It is large, has a speed of 40 ft, they get reckless attack, labrynthine recall, and their charge only takes 10 ft while also pushing and increasing the damage of their horns by 2d8, oh, their horns also naturally deal 2d8+strength mod.

So, if a player in a Forgotten Realms game came to you and said they wanted to play a minotaur, you'd tell them they have to be a large Monstrosity with 40 ft of movement and a natural weapon that does 2d8 damage? That, is the Forgotten Realms version, the one whose lore I mentioned.

It isn't the player option though,and since the Baphomet lore is relatively new, I bet if I dug through the Forgotten Realms lore, I'd fine a friendly minotaur.

But, here is a repeat of your argument. There is a player option, and a monster statblock. And they are not identical.

Just like with Goblins.
Just like with Bugbears
Just like with Hobgoblins
Just like with Lizardfolk
Just like with Kenku
Just like with Yuan-Ti Purebloods
Just like with Kobolds


The Monster Statblock is not the player option. It doesn't matter if one or the other is setting specific. One is the player option, and when talking about a player playing a character, you are talking about the player option.

Stop conflating them. This isn't confusion, this is you blatantly choosing to make the Playable Centaur race something it isn't, just so you can make them seem more unreasonable to attempt to play.

And none of those would be options in my game. If I'm going to allow a monstrous race, it's going to be the monster. I don't do silly balance games where the PC version is a weak parody of the real thing.

 

[Umbran]

... those are the rules for playing a Centaur character.

Perhaps you forgot a major tagline for the edition: "Rulings, not rules."

The fact that there exists one published version of PC centaurs (that is not available to you unless you happen to buy the book) does not mean that that version must be accepted as written in any particular game.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I don't think it really was 5e that pushed dragonborn and tieflings to the forefront. Despite people's opinions of 4e, most people who played D&D at the time of its release, tried it. 4e pushed the idea of a draconic humaniod and a fiendish humaniod to the forefront. And it exposed that if put in the same general area of mechanical viability, people wanted to play it. Or maybe the other way around...

D&D fans always wanted to play draconic,demonic, fey, elemental, monstrous, and animalistic races. However such races usually sucked too hard for anyone to take the mechanical hit to roleplay the story.

Kinda like being a fan of a very bad sports team outside their home city.
Their fans come out the woodwork the second the team looks decent.

With 4e's more standardized races, tiefling and dargonborn fans dusted off their ideas and sheets. When a less controversial edition came out, it was a flood. So tradtionalists D&D fans, who likely skipped 4e, just saw the wave and some were confused where it came from.

 

[Mecheon]

pushed the idea of a draconic humaniod

I will argue here, the draconic humanoid thing has been around for a long time. Draconians and Dragonkin are the obvious two forerunners, both becoming playable in 3.5E, and Dragonborn is just a natural genericification of them and 3.5E's Dragonborn which are, well, very much their own thing. 4E just finally let it go together into one

 

[Don Durito]

Tieflings had been around for a long time in 3E. They were a popular edition from Planescape and as soon as rules for them existed people wanted to play them. They used to be easier to include in fact as they had no distinct cultural origin and could be created to pass as human.

I don't think they've ever quite lived up to their first appearance in the Planescape campaign setting:

Part human and part something else, tieflings are the orphans of the planes. They can be described as humans who've been plane-touched. A shadow of knife-edge in their face, a little too much fire in their eyes, a scent of ash in their presence - all these things and more describe a tiefling.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it really was 5e that pushed dragonborn and tieflings to the forefront. Despite people's opinions of 4e, most people who played D&D at the time of its release, tried it. 4e pushed the idea of a draconic humaniod and a fiendish humaniod to the forefront. And it exposed that if put in the same general area of mechanical viability, people wanted to play it. Or maybe the other way around...

D&D fans always wanted to play draconic,demonic, fey, elemental, monstrous, and animalistic races. However such races usually sucked too hard for anyone to take the mechanical hit to roleplay the story.

Kinda like being a fan of a very bad sports team outside their home city.
Their fans come out the woodwork the second the team looks decent.

With 4e's more standardized races, tiefling and dargonborn fans dusted off their ideas and sheets. When a less controversial edition came out, it was a flood. So tradtionalists D&D fans, who likely skipped 4e, just saw the wave and some were confused where it came from.

Interesting. My experience was that D&D fans always wanted to play draconic, demonic, fey, etc. races, but they were too powerful and the DM said no.

 

[Minigiant]

I will argue here, the draconic humanoid thing has been around for a long time. Draconians and Dragonkin are the obvious two forerunners, both becoming playable in 3.5E, and Dragonborn is just a natural genericification of them and 3.5E's Dragonborn which are, well, very much their own thing. 4E just finally let it go together into one

I didn't say the idea was new.
I said the idea was old but the execution was often bad mechanically and many would not accept it just to play the story. the 2etiefling wasa little bad but super lame. And the 3e one was terrible.

I don't think Draconians and Dragonkin got PC stats until 3e and very very few races were worth the LA.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say the idea was new.
I said the idea was old but the execution was often bad mechanically and many would not accept it just to play the story. the 2etiefling wasa little bad but super lame. And the 3e one was terrible.

I don't think Draconians and Dragonkin got PC stats until 3e and very very few races were worth the LA.

The level adjustment was almost meaningless by mid level. I just ignored it.