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

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Okay, I apologize for being unclear.

The rules for "Push, Drag or Lift" is the times 30. The word lift indicates that it includes... lifting.

I just figured giving part of the name of the rules section literally underneath the one your referenced would be good enough.

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.

Mentioned reducing the weigh in the context of "everything is dead weight" resting part of it on a mechanical option changes that.

Also, a few things about the block and tackle.

First off, if you have a Centaur who needs lifted or lowered up or down walls and cliffs, spending the single gold on buying the 5 lb common item seems like a very good investment.

Second, yes, those spells are also solutions.

Thirdly, no, since the Block and tackle multiples your "push, drag or lift" value by four, and a centaur weighs at most 840 lbs, you only need a single character with a strength of... 8. To lift the Centaur and likely all of their gear.

(8*30*4 = 960 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).

So... you can't step, and use your legs muscles to pull your body? That seems 100% wrong to me. But again, not like it matters. A Centaur with 16 strength and the set up I mentioned is already doing this with poundage to spare.

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

Huh? That is not a rule in the book.

Firstly, it isn't a rule for climbing

Secondly, since I was talking about the lifting values, that makes even less sense

A medium character with a strength of 8 could lift 120 lb, so, depending on race, they might have difficulty. As they should. You wouldn't expect weakings to be able to shin up a rope without a chance of failure. I know I can't climb a rope.

Per RAW (as I literally discussed earlier) there is no check for climbing up a rope. Characters just climb at half their speed.

If you are homebrewing that, that's on you, but I think this demonstrates what people are saying.

A Warlock weighing 150 lbs and carrying 100 lbs of gear makes no check climbing a rope, even though technically, by accounting for their body weight, they are 10 lbs over their limit.

And remember, you have to pass a skill check for every 1/2 your move you climb.

No you don't that is a houserule.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

View attachment 130903

”... and after witnessing the creator deities’ legendary success creating the centaur, the demigod of crazy scientists got to work on a human-centipede...”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay, I apologize for being unclear.

The rules for "Push, Drag or Lift" is the times 30. The word lift indicates that it includes... lifting.

I just figured giving part of the name of the rules section literally underneath the one your referenced would be good enough.



Mentioned reducing the weigh in the context of "everything is dead weight" resting part of it on a mechanical option changes that.

Also, a few things about the block and tackle.

First off, if you have a Centaur who needs lifted or lowered up or down walls and cliffs, spending the single gold on buying the 5 lb common item seems like a very good investment.

Second, yes, those spells are also solutions.

Thirdly, no, since the Block and tackle multiples your "push, drag or lift" value by four, and a centaur weighs at most 840 lbs, you only need a single character with a strength of... 8. To lift the Centaur and likely all of their gear.

(8*30*4 = 960 lbs)



So... you can't step, and use your legs muscles to pull your body? That seems 100% wrong to me. But again, not like it matters. A Centaur with 16 strength and the set up I mentioned is already doing this with poundage to spare.



Huh? That is not a rule in the book.

Firstly, it isn't a rule for climbing

Secondly, since I was talking about the lifting values, that makes even less sense



Per RAW (as I literally discussed earlier) there is no check for climbing up a rope. Characters just climb at half their speed.

If you are homebrewing that, that's on you, but I think this demonstrates what people are saying.

A Warlock weighing 150 lbs and carrying 100 lbs of gear makes no check climbing a rope, even though technically, by accounting for their body weight, they are 10 lbs over their limit.





No you don't that is a houserule.

Also, using a block and tackle and spiked climbing shoes, the centaur can probably get up without any help beyond setting up the block and tackle and spotting for rope issues.

 

[Maxperson]

And further is there anything that governs how much a character must weigh? I understand there are some guidelines under PC creation, but if I've understood correctly, those are 100% optional.

And as far as I know, this would be the only mechanical interaction with character weight used anywhere outside of moving a corpse.

I allow flexibility within reason. The given range of Ravnica Centaur weight is 602-840 pounds. If a player wanted a smaller centaur and weigh in at 450-500 pounds, I'd be good with that. If they wanted to be medium and weigh in at 1000, I'm good with that, too. I don't make the players go random for height and weight, as long as it's reasonably close to the book.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

Enhh. The spell summons a spirit. If a centaur is going to summon something to serve as a mount, it'll be something they can use as a mount because they'd know what kinds of creatures would serve that purpose. Just make it some kind of weird looking snake or lizard or something.

 

[Hussar]

A medium-sized centaur, sure. A (large) horse-sized centaur is then holding half a ton of weight on just its (medium-sized person) arms. I am not sure the large-sized creature lift capacity increase is really intended to work like that.

Why are we presuming modern horse sizes?

 

[Hussar]

I'm not quite sure what this proves. I can fully recognize that travelers from exotic places like China, Japan, or Scandinavia were present thousands of miles from where they came from. It doesn't mean I'm wrong to disallow a samurai character in my 17th century swashbuckling campaign set in France or a Norse viking character in my 9th century Celtic game. If it doesn't fit the aesthetics of the game I don't think I'm wrong for excluding it.

That said, when I'm wrong I typically admit it and make some changes. My Trail of Cthulhu campaign was set in New York of the 1930s and I had assumed there were no laws regarding the purchase of dynamite. After a little research I was shown to be wrong and from then on it was a little more difficult for characters to get their hands on it though certainly not impossible. When it comes to rules, when we realize we're doing something wrong we'll usually continue using the rule incorrectly for the rest of the session and starting the next session use it correctly.

The argument was that these things were banned because they were historically inaccurate. Not because of aesthetics.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

I think you are being overly restrictive. IRL, I can jump on my friend's back, a fellow human, and ride him around. I mean, none of my friends actually let me DO that anymore, not since we were 10 or so . . . but it's totally believable. I don't see why a centaur couldn't jump on and ride around on a horse, or even another centaur. Perhaps a wemic even. I mean, you'd get some looks, for sure. But you could do it.

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.

Whoosh. You are correct, however, that once a paladin summons a mount, they don't have to actually ride that mount. Especially if others might judge them as being silly, or even perhaps a little perverted. Maybe a house rule to change the spell name to "find friend", allowing the centaur paladin to summon a buddy to gallop with, but non on. Or, perhaps your centaur paladin character is just a little on the weird side . . .

Well, if we have a rope already, no reason we can’t also have a block and tackle, and a rope harness around the centaur.

With spiked shoes to help grip the rock, the centaur is pushing upward with all four legs and pulling with their hands, but with a block and tackle, they aren’t even pulling up their full weight.

This amazing thread has inspired me. My next character is definitely going to be a centaur paladin with the "mountaineer" background. Maybe he's got some bariaur in the family tree somewhere. I don't think I'll have him ride around on a horse though, just have a horse buddy to gallop across the plains with, and up mountains and cliffs. Or maybe just give him a cool magic item, like Leomund's Rock Climbing Wall or something . . .

 

[Hussar]

I too am not sure what the coin implies.

But, if I am wrong, then we change the rule or use the new version next time. This happens in a game with 200 page rulebooks and that is also meant to be interpretive. I have never seen a table hold a grudge or take their books and storm off. It happens all the time. We just corrected our rogue on his damage for like the hundredth time. No biggie. No one cares. New ruling and then move on with the game.

I was repeatedly told that it was 100% impossible to have Asian flavoured pcs in a medieval Egypt game because there were no records of Asian peoples coming to Europe.

Apparently that is becoming less and less true as more and more evidence is showing up of medieval interactions between various nations.

So if your argument is, you can’t be a samurai in my Egypt game because of how I understand history and you are shown to be wrong, is the player being bad for doing so? Would it change your ruling?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This amazing thread has inspired me. My next character is definitely going to be a centaur paladin with the "mountaineer" background. Maybe he's got some bariaur in the family tree somewhere. I don't think I'll have him ride around on a horse though, just have a horse buddy to gallop across the plains with, and up mountains and cliffs. Or maybe just give him a cool magic item, like Leomund's Rock Climbing Wall or something . . .

I’m torn between a centaur ancient Paladin, Fey Wanderer Ranger, Kensei Monk, or Swashbuckler Rogue.