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

[Argyle King]

Then why did you specifically talk about "Ultimate Authority"? Why all these posts about needing your absolute command unquestioned? What is the point of being so gorram insistent on having PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER if you never actually DO any of these one-sided declarations? That's the whole reason I keep pushing back. People keep declaring the right to make these one-sided, no-discussion declarations.


I must beg your forgiveness for considering this hyperbolic at best. And if it isn't hyperbolic...wow. I just don't really know what to say about you being constantly driven crazy by something so utterly mild and even prosaic as this. It, quite honestly, sounds like a serious problem, if that's the case.


So...the DM...the person with phenomenal cosmic power, "Ultimate Authority," the one who can will literally anything into existence...they're the one who has no options. Are you really sure about that? I don't really see how that works here.

Also, the dichotomy isn't false if you're the one who presented it. I didn't invent anything there; I literally just applied your own logic quite simply to the two cases at hand (player's fun is lessened without [insert race here], DM's fun is lessened with it). If the dichotomy is false, it indicates there's something wrong with that underlying logic--because the dichotomy was trivially easy to produce.


You may not see it as such, but it really is. Having relative differences like this can mean it is possible to resolve the conflict through other means. "If I play an X, but do so with a Y which you've said you find awesome, is that okay?" type thing. When it is no longer all-or-nothing, it becomes possible to have answers that aren't zero-sum games. That's a distinction I almost can't capture, it's so vast; diplomacy becomes nigh-infinitely easier when you can trade concessions on different things rather than having to exclusively determine the acceptable midpoint on each and every thing. If my tax cuts can be palatable to you if I include shifting some of the (overall-reduced) budget to education, suddenly things that were absolute no-go before become not only possible but relatively easy to achieve.


And I really think that level of being unilateral is inappropriate most of the time.


My words have gotten heated at various points in this thread, so I want to thank you very sincerely for this. It is not easy to be magnanimous, but you're doing so. I truly appreciate you doing this.


1. No, because D&D isn't literature and literature isn't D&D. They support each other, they reference each other, but they are not the same thing, and there are things you can do in either one that won't fly in the other.
2. No, because even if this were a campaign, as I've said numerous times, sometimes the answer really is "no." My beef is with leaping to "no" without either a fair hearing (which means being open to persuasion), or sitting down and explaining why you cannot be persuaded and trying to find another approach (which, as Maxperson said, is pretty close to where he's at.)
3. No, because "guns'n'ammo" are not part of the Player's Handbook for any edition I've played. Things in the PHB, and things part of the well-known cultural background for D&D, are fair game for "thinking they're more likely than not to be playable." Things outside that, even if they're in the DMG, are not appropriate for such belief that they're likely.
4. No, because things after the campaign has already begun are different from things that are worked out during the initial "putting together the campaign" process. (And yes, this means "joined a game in progress" players are at something of a disadvantage, but that's a price I am willing to accept.)
5. No, because if the player really is going to become a petulant brat about it, the DM is well within her rights to show that player to the door. I just see a parallelism between that and behaviors that real DMs can and (unfortunately) sometimes do engage in, and which the players would be well within their rights to call out too.

That is why what you've said is a false equivalency. Well, I'm sure there are other reasons. But the above are reasonably comprehensive, I hope.


Yet the knight, which can actually fly (moving while passing "over" enemy pieces in the way), is considered a substantially weaker piece than the queen or rook (and only equal to the bishop). In fact, both knights combined aren't worth the same as the queen!

Guns and ammo exist in one of the core rulebooks of D&D.

Also, the knight is still limited to certain planes of movement. What those planes are is irrelevant to the ability to access them.

 

[Minigiant]

This is why I said earlier that it's useless to hinge this discussion on lore. There is no one single, solid, widely-agreed-upon body of lore for D&D, or even for any single edition of D&D.

It's less an argument about lore and more about if D&D also magic can sustain unnatural life after thhe spell duration ends.

One person says "yes", magic can do alter life enough that a centaur can survive without further need of magic. A wizard can do itwithout a permanent enhancement.

Another says "no", mortal magic cannot permenent create something natural without remaining on the target. Oe needs to be a god or geneticist to make unatural life.

 

[Maxperson]

The curse's magic is still on the person.

Not necessarily. And even if so, the curse is magic, not the person.

If you remove the magic, the person becomes uncursed or the curse becomes surpressed.

Not necessarily. If the curse enacts a permanent change, the change remains.

 

[Jack Daniel]

It's less an argument about lore and more about if D&D also magic can sustain unnatural life after thhe spell duration ends.

One person says "yes", magic can do alter life enough that a centaur can survive without further need of magic. A wizard can do itwithout a permanent enhancement.

Another says "no", mortal magic cannot permenent create something natural without remaining on the target. Oe needs to be a god or geneticist to make unatural life.

I've already answered this question earlier in the thread, in the only way that it can be answered.

It's a well-rehearsed refrain.

An old saying, you might call it.

A proverb, a maxim, a motto, a chestnut.

Stop me if you've heard it, now.

Feel free to sing along.

Clap your hands and stomp your feet too.

You already know how the lyrics go.

Say it with me now, class.

All rise.

Hand over your heart as we recite the pledge.

It…

DEPENDS.
ON.
THE.
SETTING.

Well, either that, or you can ask what happens by the letter of the rules when you cast detect magic on a centaur who carries no magical items. Spoiler alert: not much.

 

[Maxperson]

Ibex and Bighorn Sheep are both hooved, 4-legged creatures that are pretty amazing climbers.

Centaurs have 4 hooves and two arms.

Both of which are 4-5 times lighter than the centaur, have slight builds, and specialized hooves. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Again, I would agree that many common builds are an issue.

I don't see that as a refutation of my views on the value of flying.

What was the value you feel the flying enemies you've been using add?

I wouldn’t agree at all that any builds in 5e are a problem. It’s a nicely balanced game. Easy to adjust on the fly, runs well out of the box.

flying enemies provide a 3rd dimension and get players out of the 2d rut. Just adding them causes more improvisation, more 3D thinking. even when they could just shoot the fliers, they often choose to think differently about the scene and improvise solutions, or at least use their skills and mobility more.

It makes combat more interesting.

It also makes it so that long distance characters have to think twice about isolating themselves.

 

[Argyle King]

I wouldn’t agree at all that any builds in 5e are a problem. It’s a nicely balanced game. Easy to adjust on the fly, runs well out of the box.

flying enemies provide a 3rd dimension and get players out of the 2d rut. Just adding them causes more improvisation, more 3D thinking. even when they could just shoot the fliers, they often choose to think differently about the scene and improvise solutions, or at least use their skills and mobility more.

It makes combat more interesting.

It also makes it so that long distance characters have to think twice about isolating themselves.

I would agree that the game runs well (or at least better than some previous iterations) out of the box. I'm not always sure that I'd agree it is balanced.

It's cool that your players are imaginative and come with creative solutions. A good group can go a long way toward making a game enjoyable.

Do they find that an enemy with flying (or even swimming in water scenarios) are more difficult than those without the ability to fly?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would agree that the game runs well (or at least better than some previous iterations) out of the box. I'm not always sure that I'd agree it is balanced.

It's cool that your players are imaginative and come with creative solutions. A good group can go a long way toward making a game enjoyable.

Do they find that an enemy with flying (or even swimming in water scenarios) are more difficult than those without the ability to fly?

Depends on the enemy. Give a Dire Wolf flight, and no, it’s not more difficult. A goblin archer, sure, but not by much. It’s still just an archer with easy access to distance, which it already had via high mobility, and less access than it would have on the ground to cover and concealment.

 

[Argyle King]

Depends on the enemy. Give a Dire Wolf flight, and no, it’s not more difficult. A goblin archer, sure, but not by much. It’s still just an archer with easy access to distance, which it already had via high mobility, and less access than it would have on the ground to cover and concealment.

To me, if there are times when having flight are good and times when having flight are bad, that's still a net positive over not having the ability to do it at all (and thus not having access to it during one of the times when it would be good).

For aarakocra specifically, I think there does tend to be a tradeoff in that they don't get many other racial abilities (such as darkvision -which I think is given out too easily in 5E). I wouldn't find that to be a worthwhile trade without some way to gain better sight, as carrying a torch or something similar while flying would (imo) be dumb in many cases.

 

[Hussar]

My guess is that you would say there are limits, based upon your responses in other threads.

Absolutely NO ONE in this thread has disagreed with that.

Adding a single race (or one race for each player at the furthest extreme) does not mean that the setting has zero limits.