D&D 5E So Where my Witches at?

[Guest 6801328]

So replace that with aarakroca, and it makes a touch more sense.

In what way? I mean, maybe it better fits the DM’s plans/hopes/pre-conceived notions, but what do you mean by “makes sense”?

It seems to me that what gating rules achieve is making sure that if the players and DM have differences of opinion, the DM gets to invoke rules to have their way.

My approach would be to respect the players’ desire about what kind of character they want to play, and then work with them on a backstory to explain how such an improbable event came to be.

“Ok, so maybe Sam was Frodo’s valet and...”
“How about gardener?”

 

[Remathilis]

In what way? I mean, maybe it better fits the DM’s plans/hopes/pre-conceived notions, but what do you mean by “makes sense”?

It seems to me that what gating rules achieve is making sure that if the players and DM have differences of opinion, the DM gets to invoke rules to have their way.

My approach would be to respect the players’ desire about what kind of character they want to play, and then work with them on a backstory to explain how such an improbable event came to be.

“Ok, so maybe Sam was Frodo’s valet and...”
“How about gardener?”

Nah, it's about keeping special things special. If Bob wants to be an aarakroca, it's probably because he has a cool idea for it. He knows the race is described as rare (in both FR and Wildemont) and it's a lot less cool when Susie, John and Pedro all want to do the same or similar idea. So, Bob gets it this time, and one of the others can get it next (or Susie can be her tabaxi, John can pick samurai, and Pedro can pick the gunner feat) so that Bob can have the spotlight as the birdman and everyone else has something cool as well.

Besides, an entire party of flying PCs? Might as well toss any adventure module or guidelines right out the window...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nah, it's about keeping special things special. If Bob wants to be an aarakroca, it's probably because he has a cool idea for it. He knows the race is described as rare (in both FR and Wildemont) and it's a lot less cool when Susie, John and Pedro all want to do the same or similar idea. So, Bob gets it this time, and one of the others can get it next (or Susie can be her tabaxi, John can pick samurai, and Pedro can pick the gunner feat) so that Bob can have the spotlight as the birdman and everyone else has something cool as well.

So that sounds like it's an issue of the table not all agreeing upon some things, right? Bob wants his character to be special, in a way that conflicts with the choices of others. Why did he get to choose first? Or did he?

The solution here is that the players need to talk to each other. Maybe the other players will like the solution you propose, but maybe one of the other players has had their heart set on Aarakocra for months now, and has an even cooler idea.* Do you let the player with the "coolest" idea (as determined by whom?) win?

It's possible their goals/desires just aren't compatible, and if that's the case, trying to force compatibility through rules is a bad idea. In general I think "jerk prevention" is a terrible justification for rules. Just don't play with jerks.

*By the way "it's probably because he has a cool idea for it" is nonsense. He might, he might not. He might just be a powergamer who wants flying, and if powergaming is frowned upon at this table he'll probably pretend to have another motivation.

Besides, an entire party of flying PCs? Might as well toss any adventure module or guidelines right out the window...

Talk to @Flamestrike about that one. If flying is so overpowered, then it seems strange to let one player have it, with the argument that more of them would break things.

 

[Remathilis]

So that sounds like it's an issue of the table not all agreeing upon some things, right? Bob wants his character to be special, in a way that conflicts with the choices of others. Why did he get to choose first? Or did he?

The solution here is that the players need to talk to each other. Maybe the other players will like the solution you propose, but maybe one of the other players has had their heart set on Aarakocra for months now, and has an even cooler idea.* Do you let the player with the "coolest" idea (as determined by whom?) win?

It's possible their goals/desires just aren't compatible, and if that's the case, trying to force compatibility through rules is a bad idea. In general I think "jerk prevention" is a terrible justification for rules. Just don't play with jerks.

*By the way "it's probably because he has a cool idea for it" is nonsense. He might, he might not. He might just be a powergamer who wants flying, and if powergaming is frowned upon at this table he'll probably pretend to have another motivation.

I have a feeling that you somehow missed me in the thread on exotic fantasy races. I'm cool with a lot of options. I'm not cool with anything goes. There are expectations that my players know, and one of them is certain rare options might be a one per campaign deal, subject to whomever asked first or whoever is agreed upon. So, if Bob, Susie, John, and Pedro get together for session zero, they know I'm going to OK exactly one aarakroca PC so they can either hash it out, Bob can call dibs on it first, or they can roshambo for it for all I care. One aarakroca. And Bob is going to have to have a cool idea, I do ask for a brief idea of what you are going to play so I can make them work into the game and if your idea is "lulz 50 fly speed" then you might lose out to Susie who actually HAS an idea for a character, not a toon.

I find that some mild expectations and quality control makes everything move smooth. It's not the tyranny of the DM, but I do feel a healthy discussion and compromise between DM and Player is important. Making PCs work with the setting, the style and tone all help in the long run.

So yeah, only one aarakroca. Pick one of the 30 other races or subraces and you can be the aarakroca next time.

 

[Remathilis]

Talk to @Flamestrike about that one. If flying is so overpowered, then it seems strange to let one player have it, with the argument that more of them would break things.

One flying PC is easy to control; they might be a good scout, but unless they want to sit for hours doing nothing while their allies walk via the long way, they are probably going to keep with their allies. But a party of PCs who can avoid any ground-based problem at will? Beyond the pale.

 

[Guest 6801328]

One flying PC is easy to control; they might be a good scout, but unless they want to sit for hours doing nothing while their allies walk via the long way, they are probably going to keep with their allies. But a party of PCs who can avoid any ground-based problem at will? Beyond the pale.

Well, I don't like flying PCs at all, so in some ways you're preaching to the choir. But it just seems that if thematically you're ok with flying, and you can design encounters that aren't trivialized by flying, I don't really see the difference between 1 and many. But whatever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I have a feeling that you somehow missed me in the thread on exotic fantasy races. I'm cool with a lot of options. I'm not cool with anything goes. There are expectations that my players know, and one of them is certain rare options might be a one per campaign deal, subject to whomever asked first or whoever is agreed upon. So, if Bob, Susie, John, and Pedro get together for session zero, they know I'm going to OK exactly one aarakroca PC so they can either hash it out, Bob can call dibs on it first, or they can roshambo for it for all I care. One aarakroca. And Bob is going to have to have a cool idea, I do ask for a brief idea of what you are going to play so I can make them work into the game and if your idea is "lulz 50 fly speed" then you might lose out to Susie who actually HAS an idea for a character, not a toon.

I find that some mild expectations and quality control makes everything move smooth. It's not the tyranny of the DM, but I do feel a healthy discussion and compromise between DM and Player is important. Making PCs work with the setting, the style and tone all help in the long run.

So yeah, only one aarakroca. Pick one of the 30 other races or subraces and you can be the aarakroca next time.

Sure, ok. But what you are describing is aesthetic preference. Either your players share that preference, in which case I'm sure everybody will find a good solution, or you're imposing that preference on the players, in which case you may have problems that won't be solved by pretending there's a logical, deterministic reason why Bob gets to be an Aarakocra but Susie doesn't.

Either way I don't see a need for "gating" things behind a rule.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Or a paladin, if you make it class-based instead of race-based.

Mark: I'm playing a paladin, a holy warrior the likes of which have been unseen for generations, whose coming was foretold to mark the fall of the demon king-
Simon: Oh, actually I'm playing a paladin too. I was born with the God of Justice's holy symbol as my birthmark, and was trained by clerics since birth to put an end to the lich lord-
Elaine: Wait, my character is a paladin who traveled here from a distant land after receiving a vision from her god that her blade would be needed to stop the arrival of the Old Ones-
Jim and Steve: Hey, we're playing paladins too! Destined holy warriors, represent!
Beth: My character's a bard, but according to what I got on the rumor tables, a group of paladins just passed through here last week.

DM: This is happening because there were watching the anime "Saint Seya".

 

[Lanefan]

One flying PC is easy to control; they might be a good scout, but unless they want to sit for hours doing nothing while their allies walk via the long way, they are probably going to keep with their allies. But a party of PCs who can avoid any ground-based problem at will? Beyond the pale.

I'm somewhat used to this, in that my parties covet and hoard anything they ever come across that can get them in the air and keep them there. Eventually, they end up being able to get and remain airborne as a group for long stretches, which (usually) makes travel easier and sometimes makes certain adventures or scenarios much less challenging.

I'm cool with the less-challenging part, as I see it as kind of a long-term reward for the work they did to get their mitts on the flight abilities in the first place.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, ok. But what you are describing is aesthetic preference. Either your players share that preference, in which case I'm sure everybody will find a good solution, or you're imposing that preference on the players, in which case you may have problems that won't be solved by pretending there's a logical, deterministic reason why Bob gets to be an Aarakocra but Susie doesn't.

Yeah, to me this would be a potential issue as well; for a few reasons:

--- it would be far too easy for a DM to play favourites. Silly example: "Susan, you brought beer to roll-up night, which means you get to be the game's only Paladin! Sorry, Bob, you're out o' luck."
--- it puts later-arriving players joining a campaign at something of a disadvantage by limiting their range of options
--- it could cause hard feelings among players if two or more legitimately want to play a similar rare concept.

This is why I tend more towards gating things behind random dice rolls where both I and the players have to live with the results. For example, Gnomes are not a chooseable race in my current game (largely due to my own preference!) but they're on the random-race table; and if the dice suddenly decide to put three of the little buggers in the party then so be it.

Dice, when rolled honestly, don't play any favourites.