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

embee said:

The Centaur's Shampoo

https://www.amazon.com/Mane-Tail-Shampoo-Conditioner-32-Ounce/dp/B0046KG8DS

Click to expand...

embee said:

To make this a more concrete example, the difference is Li Mu Bai standing on a bamboo shoot and Mr. Ed climbing a ladder.

Li Mu Bai standing on a bamboo shoot is possible, not because he is a human, but because he is a legendary warrior whose status as a martial arts master has been demonstrated over the entirety of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, shoring up the viewer's suspension of disbelief.

Mr. Ed cannot climb a ladder (or go rock climbing) because his actual anatomy does not allow his legs and hooves to climb a ladder or grip a cliff face and any attempt to shoehorn that ability in around his actual physical anatomy would destroy the viewer's suspension of disbelief.

Click to expand...

Umbran said:

No. Because it doesn't have hands. However, put hands on a goat-centaur, and the deed becomes rather plausible.

The problem with a horse-centaur is mass. The horse body weighs half a ton, so that it becomes implausible that arms will have sufficient strength to lift it.

Thus, we think the centaur can't climb because it is a Medium-sized torso on an overall Large sized critter.

Click to expand...

FrozenNorth said:

I think your conception of Session Zero is different from that of Ezekian Raiden and me.

Session Zero is where all parties talk about parameters and, if there is time, create their characters. But the character ideas should have already been discussed.

Click to expand...

overgeeked said:

To me, session zero is everything that takes place before the start of the first actual game. Even if it isn't literally a big group meeting in meat-space etc. Everything from "I'm thinking about running a game" up to the opening narration of the first game session is "session zero" to me.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

There's nothing hypocritical about it. We all draw realism lines in different places for different things. In this case he draws the line in one place for a human and in another place for the very physically different centaur. For hypocrisy to come into play, the two would have to be equivalent. Say a human being allowed to, but an aasimar being refused.

Personally, without some sort of spider climb or other magical/quasi-magical ability, I wouldn't let either the human or aasimar run up a stalk of bamboo.

Click to expand...

Umbran said:

No. Because it doesn't have hands. However, put hands on a goat-centaur, and the deed becomes rather plausible.

The problem with a horse-centaur is mass. The horse body weighs half a ton, so that it becomes implausible that arms will have sufficient strength to lift it.

Thus, we think the centaur can't climb because it is a Medium-sized torso on an overall Large sized critter.

Click to expand...

Sabathius42 said:

So you are saying with some amount of training by a person the bamboo becomes magically able to sustain 150lbs of weight at the top of the shoot?

Click to expand...

Minigiant said:

Obviously marketed to male centaurs as Big Shampoo markets all-in-ones to males.

What savage washes their mane with the same shampoo as their tails?

Click to expand...

Sabathius42 said:

Player: I want to do X.
GM: That doesn't make sense. You can't.
Player: My characters rules on page Y says I can.

GM (to monk): OK, I'll allow it.
GM (to centaur): Still no.

This is hypocritical by definition. You may want to justify it as being "more real" but allowing it for some and not others is hypocritical.

Click to expand...