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

[Maxperson]

No, I wasn’t.

The centaur can bend. We have established this.

Bending isn't relevant. It doesn't help them climb with a horse body. 100% flexibility or 0%, the centaurs falls.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

I don't think that's appropriate. The DC should be static for everyone. If you want to make it harder for the centaur(as opposed to just saying it's not possible), then you can impose disadvantage, give penalties or both and make it more difficult that way.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is not a reasonable critique of this post, or to responsive to the general tone of the recent strand of conversation.

There has been no attempt to discredit Max's version of the centaur beyond an acknowledgement that it is explicitly his version of it. And folks have been "applying logic" on both sides. And one of those sides is claiming that they have the true logic, and anything otherwise is an absurdity.

How so?

You stated:

I mean, this conversation hasn't been serious for a while. There are no apples to apples comparisons happening anywhere, because centaurs aren't real creatures.

You stated since centaurs aren't real we can't compare them to anything. I stated that Max's tables uses their own logic: they compare them to horses (which are real) and people (which are real). I stated your side said it can't be compared because they are not real. That is what you meant when you said centaurs can't be compared because they aren't real creatures, right?

So to me, who still thinks the debate should be over the DC not whether they can or can't, isn't a one side logic wins. It is to see the absurdity of either side presented with game rules, physical evidence and general laws of physics and muscles and do everything to refute it rather than saying:
"We like our centaurs to be able to climb ropes. Here is how I picture it (add visual). Yeah, it is absurd, but you know, dragons. Anyway, it works for our table. How would you call this circumstance? (Add specific circumstance)"
or
"We don't like our centaurs to climb ropes. Here is how I picture it (add visual). Yeah, its simulationism, but it would break our immersion if we played it any differently. How would your table call this circumstance (Add specific circumstance)?"

I hope you can see the difference between that and someone saying: "A centaur weighs 600-800 pounds. No one can do a pullup with human arms with 600 pounds." And then watching twenty posts of people trying to deny this fact. Sometimes there are just facts. They should be accepted. Like how hooves are not as good as fingers for gripping.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

The DM sets the DC. The question doesn't compute. The DM can set the DC based on whatever they think is relevant. Whether it's fair or not is another matter, of course. Personally, I'd call it overkill to both make them use twice as much movement to climb, and set a higher DC for the centaur vs a human. In a case where a check is even needed, the fact it's harder for the centaur is already accounted for by the fact they climb slower.

 

[Maxperson]

@doctorbadwolf mocking laugh emojis are not appropriate dude.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Bending isn't relevant. It doesn't help them climb with a horse body. 100% flexibility or 0%, the centaurs falls.

Nope.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@doctorbadwolf mocking laugh emojis are not appropriate dude.

Firstly, I'll care when it stops being so common that it happens at a rate of about 1 page in 5 in most threads.

Second, this particular case wasn't mocking.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM sets the DC. The question doesn't compute. The DM can set the DC based on whatever they think is relevant. Whether it's fair or not is another matter, of course. Personally, I'd call it overkill to both make them use twice as much movement to climb, and set a higher DC for the centaur vs a human. In a case where a check is even needed, the fact it's harder for the centaur is already accounted for by the fact they climb slower.

I think he's asking whether the DM can set the DC at 35 for a centaur and 15 for a humanoid. In my opinion, it shouldn't be done like that. I think the DC for a cliff is how hard it is to climb in general, and then other circumstances give bonuses and penalties to the climbers.

 

[Maxperson]

Firstly, I'll care when it stops being so common that it happens at a rate of about 1 page in 5 in most threads.

Second, this particular case wasn't mocking.

Yes it was as it was not a joke. I don't do it to you. Don't do it to me.

 

[Oofta]

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?

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.