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.
So, again, you are going to ignore the rules as written, and then tell us all the problems with using your homebrew version. Which you insist on using, instead of the rules as written that we are talking about.
How is that our problem?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Sure, but to make an extreme slippery slope analogy, if a DM bans humans under the premise "I don't want to deal with them shooting vorpal swords from their eyes" I feel like I'm in a fair position to say "those aren't the rules, so why aren't we using the rules instead of your homebrew that you would ban?"
Sure, everyone is going to say DMs can ban anything for any reason, but if you are homebrewing something to be broken, then banning it for your own homebrew, that is entirely on your head. And telling us that what we are doing is silly, because you are using your homebrew, and not the rules we are talking about, is also on your head.
That is why we don't talk about people's homebrew rules when discussing the general game, because those aren't the common rules everyone is using.
And, even under "rulings not rules" if you make a ruling like "all centaurs are large" and then start citing all the problems a player is going to get into because of your ruling, then I think as a player my question would be "Well, why don't you reverse the ruling, and we use the rules I wanted to use in the first place, instead of this ruling that makes everything not work?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not quite clear how big Goliaths are - so that's a bit muddy. I will occasionally impose advantage or disadvantage on Goliaths or Halflings where their size would be an issue.
I know I keep being that guy, but it is fairly explicit how big Goliaths are.
They stand between 6 ft and 8 ft tall and weigh between 200 and 450 lbs. It is listed right in Volo's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but you are saying I do it.
I have said it before. But maybe I can address each paragraph starting with II.
II: I have, and insist, that the player can and should ask. ("press against the limits.") C'mon. You know you have heard me say this many times. Admit it.
And I believe it was you who also said that "better yet" the player should just trust their DM. A point you haven't readdressed yet, but that tells me that sure a player can ask, but the best thing they could do is not ask.
III: And, I see the confusion here. I have never said: why would the player even ask. I have said, why would the player insist on making a character after the DM has told them that is off limits. So clarification: The player can and should ask if they have their heart set on something the DM specifically said no to. The DM should work with the player ("bend"). My guess is your bend and my bend have different definitions.
From your previous list, your "bend" is finding a way for the player to match into the parameters. You have never once said it was acceptable for the DM to change the parameters that I have seen.
But I guess when you said this
"If I am wrong about this concession, then I will admit it. But, after being asked twenty times about why a DM should ban something - and giving reasons upon reasons - only to see the reasons just not be quite good enough. Then the reasons are not valid for one some people on one side. I just simply wish they would come out and say it. Oofta, Max, myself and others have stated our thesis a hundred times. Ours differ. But we have stated them. For some reason, the player side, without throwing in a bunch of clauses and partially acceptable phrases, can't do this.
And the thing that really grinds my gears
is none of you will answer why the player would do this if they know up front exactly what they are allowed and not allowed to play based on the DM giving clear guidelines. Why would they do this?"
You only meant why they would insist, not why they would ask. Which... is pretty unclear from reading this.
IV: This is why I asked about specific reasons, and whether they were okay. And it is difficult to answer your question without the inference that you are referring to some DM that does not respect players, "mere players question me." As if he was a dictator. No such DM exists in any of my examples. The DM is open to change. Maybe not on their race list, but on other things. That does not make them a dictator.
I find it amusing that in a response I had to Oofta, you are talking about how none of what you said was in your examples. Especially since I was fairly specific even in that paragraph that I was not attacking anyone.
And sure, no one is going to post on these forums saying "mere players" but the outrage that the other side seems to feel as they begin listing all of the work they do as DMs, all the decades of world building, all the care they take in every little fine-tuned detail, really does come across as feeling superior.
After all, "players" never put in that much work. Sometimes neither do DMs, but it is always presented as this massive list of time and effort the DM did, and contrasting that with how the players wouldn't even read a single sheet of setting notes, because that is how little they care. It is the same example over and over again. DMs work hard, players don't, so players should just leave the DM alone.
V: Conversations are fine. But there has never been a D&D table where "all possibilities" are on the table. That is because D&D is a game with rules. Rules limit possibilities. As far as the DM submission, when every reason the DM states is turned down and argued against by the player, yes, that means the DM either submits or says no. In a conversation a few pages back, you know, the one where the DMs said the player could get the mechanical benefit of a drow and use a similar culture. It was still pressed against, saying that it still was not really what the player wanted. Even though the act of giving mechanics and similar culture is bending as far as one can bend, it wasn't enough. The next step is submitting. Again, that is not compromise. That is submitting.
Funny how me asking for "all possibilities" so as to include the DM changing their parameters as a possible outcome is getting challenged by "well DnD has rules, so not all possibilities"
Especially since in this same post I'm arguing for rules, and being told "rulings not rules" because Max is insisting on Homebrewing monstrous races, then giving them penalties based on his homebrew. I mean, "You can't have all possibilities, because DnD has rules, you wouldn't see Bilbo with a machine gun would you" always comes up, right at the same time you guys are saying "I'm the DM, I am not bound by the rules, I have the authority to change any rule I want at any time for any reason."
But sure, I'll throw you a bone. A player asking to play a sentient piece of buttered toast, a continent, or an astro-mecha with an anti-particle beam is being unreasonable. DnD has rules. By that same token. A player asking to play a Yuan-Ti Pureblood as statted in Volos guide, or an Eladrin as statted in Mordenkainen's tome of foes is following the rules of DnD.
So, the next player I get asking for a Gatling gun filled with micro-nukes, they will definitely be told to follow the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are punishing (again) the centaur for something he already is being punished for. Lets look at the actual rules:
Equine Build. You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push or drag.
In addition, any climb that requires hands and feet is especially difficult for you because of your equine legs. When you make such a climb, each foot of movement costs you 4 extra feet, instead of the normal 1 extra foot.
So, a centaur CAN climb, very slowly, using the difficult terrain rules. That is penalty enough. A centaur trying to climb a rope or a steep cliff moved 1 foot per every 5 ft of movement expended; or (assuming he's not a monk or barbarian) in one round he climbs 8 feet while a human can climb 15. If your using a grid; he moves one square (round down) to every 3 squares the human moves. If you want to rule that the centaur is equally ungainly on a spiral staircase, the double or quadruple move penalty is equally acceptable.
I don't agree with the notion that the centaur needs to make ability checks to do mundane things in mundane settings. The example that was placed as Dex checks to climb the stairs in an inn; a completely mundane activity with little or no danger and, in reality, no consequence of failure except to allow the DM (and any other player) a chance to laugh at him when he flops and falls doing mundane tasks. Its comparable to the tiefling getting his tail stuck in the door, a dragonborn unable to use silverwear with his claws, or a tabaxi having to save vs. fleas every time they go into deep woods. To be honest, it feels very ableist, even if that is completely unintentional.
Yeah, 100% this.
There is a point where "realism" and a DMs houserules are just acting like a soft ban to the race being played.
If I want to play a medium sized 600lbs centaur, and the DM insists I need to be large and over 2,000 lbs, then punishes me by having me break floorboards and be unable to follow the party into the dungeon that they created with stairs and tunnels too small for a large creature... just be honest that you want to ban the race.
I won't like it, but at least you are being upfront instead of making this long, drawn out, painful experience just to discourage me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is punishing? First, in my own game, I wouldn't even have them roll. But, it is all context. Context is king. You obviously are not picturing the top floor of the inn on fire, or a fight breaking out and the centaur trying to run down. Context.
You know, I work at various school buildings. A lot of them have staircases, and sometimes when I suddenly get called to cover a different room, or something similar, I rush up or down the stairs. Not running, just going fast.
How many times do you think I trip and almost fall down a flight of stairs?
How many times have any of us ever had a PC roll to run down a flight of stairs? Something that realistically, is actually hard to do without falling? My guess is none. Building on fire, fight breaking out, late for the last muffin, I've never seen anyone ask a PC to roll to run down the stairs, despite how difficult it is in real life.
But we are going to have the Centaur roll. And, sure, you are saying context, but the original poster wasn't. They were just going to have them roll to go up, and a higher DC to go down the stairs regardless of context. Why?
"Because it is more realistic", but since when do we really care about that to that extent? Let us say that a player jumps out of the second floor of that burning inn. It is about 10 ft to the ground, so they take 1d6 fall damage. "Realistically" jumping from over 10 ft up and landing on stone is going to risk shattering your legs. Especially if you are wearing an extra hundred pounds of gear and have your sword in hand (also going to risk stabbing yourself). So, we've thrown out realism already, but why do I have a sneaking suspicion that because horses have notoriously weak legs that a Centaur making that jump is going to face even more penalties because of "realism"?
Sure, context matters, but the context is a game where we already disregard reality in favor of the game world. If Sir Justin the Brave Human Paladin can run down the stairs in the dark while carrying the innkeeper's daughter and dodging arrow fire, with no roll, then why can't his friend Urel the Centaur follow him down the stairs with no roll? Why disregard realism for the human player, but not for the centaur player?
Not being argumentative, but rolls are made all the time that have no consequence to the story or game. Purely mundane things. The halfling and dragonborn having a drinking contest. No reason to roll those con saves except to have a laugh and let the players and/or DM describe them falling off the stool or falling down the stairs. Heck, most DM's I know even give out a point or two of damage from stuff like that. It doesn't stop the players from enjoying it.
The bard flirting with with the barkeep and getting punched for 1 point of damage. The one player we had that put his super-mega-hot sauce in on people's food as a joke, making them roll a con save or have diarrhea the next day. The mage that wakes the barbarian up with mage hand because he is snoring by placing a hot coal on his hand. The centaur could very well just end up being the Dick Van Dyke of the party when walking down the stairs at the inn.
There is a difference here though, wonder if you can see it.
The Centaur player tries to walk down stairs. (1 pc, no other characters)
The Dragonborn player challenges the halfling player to a drinking contest (2 PCs)
The Bard Player attempting to flirt with an NPC (1 PC and an NPC)
One player putting an substance on other player's food (2 PCs)
The mage player putting a hot coal on the barbarian player (2 PCs)
Most of the examples you gave were player versus player. So they are using the dice against each other.
The one you didn't was the Bard, who was attempting to flirt. They were taking an action that could have had good or bad consequences, that involved interacting with another person.
The Centaur tried to walk up stairs. That isn't exciting. They aren't interacting with anyone. The only stakes are whether or not they make a fool of themselves doing something that any other member of the party could do with ease. No one in the party is going to just casually say "I put a coal on the barbarian" and the DM hand waves it and nothing happens, but everyone except the Centaur can say "I go up stairs" and the DM will just wave them along.
Why? Why make the Centaur the butt of the joke, for trying to do something so simple?
I agree. And I said I wouldn't call for rolls. But the DM that does can make it a running gag. After all, if the DM can control everything and just bend and shape their will however they want, as what is consistently been suggested, then they can also just make most inns one floor. And only use the gag once every five or six sessions.
Right. Why are we advocating making a player part of a running gag without their input or permission?
The player isn't asking for that roll, the DM is.
I experienced a DM who forced my character to be a running gag once. It was a convention game, and I despised that single session so much, I've refused to not only never touch that system again, but I am leery of any organized play event where the characters are part of an ongoing story.
That sort of behavior is not okay.
