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

[Azzy]

Since no one is actually responding to the real question - I will ask it point blank:

Do you think the DM can change the DC of a skill check (climb) because they are a centaur?

Given that the Ravnica/Theros centaur already suffers penalties to climbing (costs extra movement), I don't think a DM should change the DC for a centaur character (as it would be doubling up on an existing penalty).

 

[Minigiant]

I'm from a school of DM that the DM doesn't have different DCs for different characters. The DM gives everyone who won't autofail or autosuccess the same DC then applies bonuses or penalties.

I am also from the school of DM that thinks PCs in 4e and 5e were only designed to be Medium or Small size. So either the race is adjusted to Small or Medium or it's isn't playable.

I am also from the school of DM that states that all PCs by default can perform all the basic actions and movements. They might have penalties or bonuses to them. But unless the fame is based on extremely divergent races, any race that cannot perform basic adventurer processes due to racial characteristics are not allowed.

 

[FireLance]

I can't believe there has been so much discussion on centaurs climbing cliffs when there is a far more important and fundamental reason why centaurs shouldn't be PCs. After all, horses climbing cliffs is a very specific problem for low level characters, after which the PCs should have the means to contrive mundane or magical solutions.

The real issue why centaurs shouldn't be PCs is because a PC centaur could choose to become a paladin and centaur paladins shouldn't be allowed. Once a centaur paladin reaches 5th level, they can cast find steed. I've Googled for images of centaurs riding a horse and they look ridiculous. And don't give me the argument that a centaur paladin can summon a mastiff instead of a horse. The spell is called find steed, not find animal companion, so I don't for a second believe that it is RAI. Nor is banning a centaur paladin from casting find steed a solution because the ability is iconic to the paladin class. It used to be an actual class ability before 5E changed it into a spell. Making a house rule that centaurs cannot be paladins is also not a solution since I like paladins and any race that can't be a paladin shouldn't be a PC race.

So, because a centaur riding a horse looks ridiculous, centaur paladins shouldn't be allowed, and since races that cannot be paladins shouldn't be PC races, centaurs shouldn't be PCs. This is an obvious and logical argument that I can't believe hasn't been made yet.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why? Or is this a campaign specific example? Dwarves and elves have no particular feelings one way or another in 5e.

Yeah, I'm...very much in the same boat here. The response Oofta gave comes across as "of course any given Dwarf is going to have a harder time convincing any given Elf," which...no? I have no idea why that would be required.

So, because a centaur riding a horse looks ridiculous, centaur paladins shouldn't be allowed, and since races that cannot be paladins shouldn't be PC races, centaurs shouldn't be PCs.

I literally don't care that it isn't called "find animal companion." Its function is to provide a spirit in the form of an animal; the player is free to literally never use it as a mount if they wish. In this case, I would certainly say that the spirit could not carry the centaur-PC as a mount, because centuar PCs are too heavy, for exactly the same reason that I wouldn't let a dragonborn who weighs 350 pounds naked ride a mastiff, even if she chose to summon one with the spell. All its other functions would work normally, and because I'm not a jerk, I'd let the line about self-only spells applying to the steed "when it acts as a mount" apply if they were sharing a space, not solely when mounted. (But two creatures sharing a space have other problems, so this benefit wouldn't be used very often, I suspect.)

Having a single spell be the reason to disqualify a character from an entire class, and thus a reason to disqualify an entire race from play at all, is a bogus argument. If a DM deployed it on me, I would definitely call them out for obviously going out on a limb solely to block it. (I doubt this would ever happen, because I don't really care much about centaurs, but still.) The argument is exactly analogous to saying, "A dragonborn innately has draconic blood. This means all dragonborn would have to be draconic sorcerers, but a race that is restricted to only one class makes no sense. Therefore, dragonborn shouldn't be playable characters." Both are equally ridiculous.

No worse of an idea than shouting a guy healthy again... [emoji2369]

Uh...yeah. Maybe not the best example, even with whatever emoji that is, given how incredibly frustrating it is to have people sincerely argue that that's how Warlords work. Also, bringing a potentially even MORE controversial discussion into the thread is very much "it's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for 'em."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Drag is 18*30 = 540 lbs, which is far more accurate to the limit instead of counting just basic encumberance

No it isn't. If you climb a rope you have to lift your whole body off the ground using your upper body strength. When you drag something all you are doing work against friction. There is no lifting involved at all.

Also, if we are going with this plan of walking up with a rope, then you could create a rope sling, to take some of the weight, and use the block and tackle, which multiplies your weight you can lift by another 4, getting you 2,160 lbs

A sling just redistributes the weight, the total weight to be lifted is the same.

A block and tackle would certainly work, but it seems rather more likely that the party will have a levitate or spider climb spell than that they will be carrying a block and tackle. I expect an artificer could McGyver one if needed (I would allow the Right tool for the Job ability to be used), but it's probably easier for several party members working together to haul up the centaur.

Additionally, since you are walking, you may be able to argue using Equine Body, which allows the centaur to count as large, doubling that value to 4,320 lbs

You are pulling with your human arms. You are not doing any work with your legs. The only thing that your lower body contributes is the frictional coefficient between your hooves and the surface, which needs to provide the force that your arms are not (weight sin theta).

Oh, and an athletics check can let them do more than any of the listed numbers.

Yup. One check for every 20 feet climbed, or you fall.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Just came across this: Archaeology news: Medieval Chinese coin discovered in Hampshire 'genuinely ancient'

Which does tie nicely into the thread. Just because the dm believes something to be true certainly doesn’t make it so.

So you folks who insist that the dm have last say - how do you feel when the dm is legitimately shown to be wrong?

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I'm...very much in the same boat here. The response Oofta gave comes across as "of course any given Dwarf is going to have a harder time convincing any given Elf," which...no? I have no idea why that would be required.


I literally don't care that it isn't called "find animal companion." Its function is to provide a spirit in the form of an animal; the player is free to literally never use it as a mount if they wish. In this case, I would certainly say that the spirit could not carry the centaur-PC as a mount, because centuar PCs are too heavy, for exactly the same reason that I wouldn't let a dragonborn who weighs 350 pounds naked ride a mastiff, even if she chose to summon one with the spell. All its other functions would work normally, and because I'm not a jerk, I'd let the line about self-only spells applying to the steed "when it acts as a mount" apply if they were sharing a space, not solely when mounted. (But two creatures sharing a space have other problems, so this benefit wouldn't be used very often, I suspect.)

Having a single spell be the reason to disqualify a character from an entire class, and thus a reason to disqualify an entire race from play at all, is a bogus argument. If a DM deployed it on me, I would definitely call them out for obviously going out on a limb solely to block it. (I doubt this would ever happen, because I don't really care much about centaurs, but still.) The argument is exactly analogous to saying, "A dragonborn innately has draconic blood. This means all dragonborn would have to be draconic sorcerers, but a race that is restricted to only one class makes no sense. Therefore, dragonborn shouldn't be playable characters." Both are equally ridiculous.


Uh...yeah. Maybe not the best example, even with whatever emoji that is, given how incredibly frustrating it is to have people sincerely argue that that's how Warlords work. Also, bringing a potentially even MORE controversial discussion into the thread is very much "it's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for 'em."

Bud, I sincerely believe you missed the joke.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes. Not that my opinion really matters because I don't think centaurs could climb a sheer cliff any more than they could crawl effectively on their bellies like humans or cats. Show me a picture of a horse doing a crouch walk and I may rule differently.

But in any case, if you don't care about this kind of stuff because "fantasy game" have at it. I just wish people would acknowledge that other people's POV can be legitimate even if we disagree.

To take the centaur discussion back to 2020....and to try to make this at least partially on topic...

This discussion started because when a person chooses the centaur character class from the book, that class has a very specific rule regarding how the PC version of a centaur can make climb checks.

Ruling that they can't, because of physics, and because centaurs aren't magical enough tondefy physics is seen as unfair toward the player choosing the centaur as his character then becomes locked out of multiple spots in an adventure (going as far as to imply they wouldn't be able to stay in am inn because of stairs).

I don't hear talk about how darkvision wouldn't actually work because there are no photons that exist in the pure dark, so that should be taken away because of physics. I similarly don't hear about how there is no such thing as "luck" in the real world but we aren't taking that away. I've never heard anyone houserule that a halfling can never have a 20STR because that's the same max as a goliath. I've never heard anyone houserule a suit of plate armor offers no protection in a fight versus a fire giant with a 200lb sledgehammer.

The point of the pro-centaur side the past 70 pages has been "Why single them out for failure?" when so little of 5e makes real world sense in the first place.

 

[Oofta]

Heh. Just came across this: Archaeology news: Medieval Chinese coin discovered in Hampshire 'genuinely ancient'

Which does tie nicely into the thread. Just because the dm believes something to be true certainly doesn’t make it so.

So you folks who insist that the dm have last say - how do you feel when the dm is legitimately shown to be wrong?

So finding a chinese coin when dated to an unexpected time period proves what, exactly?

 

[Oofta]

To take the centaur discussion back to 2020....and to try to make this at least partially on topic...

This discussion started because when a person chooses the centaur character class from the book, that class has a very specific rule regarding how the PC version of a centaur can make climb checks.

Ruling that they can't, because of physics, and because centaurs aren't magical enough tondefy physics is seen as unfair toward the player choosing the centaur as his character then becomes locked out of multiple spots in an adventure (going as far as to imply they wouldn't be able to stay in am inn because of stairs).

I don't hear talk about how darkvision wouldn't actually work because there are no photons that exist in the pure dark, so that should be taken away because of physics. I similarly don't hear about how there is no such thing as "luck" in the real world but we aren't taking that away. I've never heard anyone houserule that a halfling can never have a 20STR because that's the same max as a goliath. I've never heard anyone houserule a suit of plate armor offers no protection in a fight versus a fire giant with a 200lb sledgehammer.

The point of the pro-centaur side the past 70 pages has been "Why single them out for failure?" when so little of 5e makes real world sense in the first place.

There are certain situations short of a vertical cliff where a climb check might be called for. It's also completely up to the DM if they want to make a house rule. If a DM allows a Ravnica centaur they should, of course let the player know how they run it.

Since I'm not going to allow centaurs in my campaign, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just relating that in 4E when centaurs became a playable race several people at the table openly questioned how it would work. Different people draw the line at what's plausible unless magic is explicitly in use.