|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 12:03PM
#21
|
|
|
I can't see any reason to disallow it. Then again, I let a player play an anthropomorphic squirrel using the elf mechanics, so ... eh.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 12:16PM
#22
|
|
|
I can't see any reason to disallow it. Then again, I let a player play an anthropomorphic squirrel using the elf mechanics, so ... eh.
Yeah, that's much more my style. I've had players on several occasions who have either a radical reinterpretation of a race/class or want to play a race that doesn't remotely exist in 4e, and as long as I can find them a race/class chassis that follows the rules and doesn't break anything, I've never seen any reason to stamp my foot and insist that everything has to be the same color and shape it's listed as.
I mean technically, if I play a 5'5" human (or a 230 lb human), I'm violating the rules about what humans can be just as much as if I play a female satyr. After all, height and weight ranges for every race are included in the racial statblock, so they're just as much a crunch rule as ability scores. But you never hear about a DM disallowing a character based on height variance, do you?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 11:18PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
|
Well, with the exception of Mr. Durriken, this got completely away from my questions and just turned back into the old thread. I guess I should have expected that.
To the people who are saying "all satyrs are male in the games I run:" What would you do with my Sara the Satyr Skald example? I mean, technically she's male, but would you disallow the character because she claims to be female? That seems a little silly. I could certainly see disallowing it because it violates your intended tone, if you're the kind of hands-on DM who needs to make those decisions about the characters your players play.
Again, because your Satyr is unlikely to actually use his (or potentially her) genitals in play, the character's actual biological sex seems unlikely to be an important issue.
I really have no problem with the sexual dimorphism argument for Satyrs and Hamadryads as different "races" statwise, but if Sara the Satyr Skald doesn't actually violate any crunch rules and the DM prohibits her on "awkward fluff" grounds, then the crunch wasn't actually the sticking point that prevented my "female" Satyr from seeing play, the awkward fluff was. Which is exactly how it would have worked if the "all Satyrs are male" was outside the crunch box as several people are suggesting,
Pretty simple, Sara sees herself as female. Lots of people in real life feel like this.
Faithful
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 12, 2011 - 5:11AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2006
|
Few things: 1) the male medusa is as far back as 2nd edition. 2) as long as you dont try to work a mechanical betifit out a thematical difference, have at. 3) Sara's grandfather was a satyr, has a daughter with an eladrin, that half-satyr has another daughter with another satyr. Now you have a 3/4 satyr eladrin who is female, as per mechanics when a elf and half elf have a child it is counted as a full elf for statistical purposes. 4) Girdle of femininity/masculenity.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 12, 2011 - 5:36AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
So pretty much from what I can gather, no one would mind the heavy hint to "Satyrs SHOULD be just male." as long as it wasn't listed as a mechanical restriction.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 12, 2011 - 10:09AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
So pretty much from what I can gather, no one would mind the heavy hint to "Satyrs SHOULD be just male." as long as it wasn't listed as a mechanical restriction.
That's basically it, yes.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 12, 2011 - 2:24PM
#27
|
|
|
So pretty much from what I can gather, no one would mind the heavy hint to "Satyrs SHOULD be just male." as long as it wasn't listed as a mechanical restriction.
That's basically it, yes.
Second
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 12, 2011 - 2:28PM
#28
|
|
|
So pretty much from what I can gather, no one would mind the heavy hint to "Satyrs SHOULD be just male." as long as it wasn't listed as a mechanical restriction.
That's basically it, yes.
Second
Third.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 12, 2011 - 4:58PM
#29
|
|
|
This is how I would handle it if I were DM:
Someone in my campaign wants to be a female satyr: I allow it, and that is considered normal in the setting.
No one in my campaign wants to be a female satyr: In my setting, all satyrs are male.
The thing is, even though I'm in the party that thinks female satyrs shouldn't really be a thing, and if I had it my way they wouldn't be in the setting, I'd never let it get in the way of what the player wants for their character.
EDIT: also the joy of dnd being a pen and paper game is that you can just say "screw it" and do whatever because there is nothing stopping you from doing it however you feel like it. Like giving a dwarf +2 int +2 chr if you want. Of course, I've never had a rulemonger dm so I can see the problems some people might have with it being a "rule".
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2011 - 9:01AM
#30
|
|
|
If a player came to me with a female satyr I'd either modify the cosmology of the game world to make room for them, or find out what about the satyr was essential to their character concept and build a race to fit. It's not as if satyrs are the only D&D creature that's a frolicsome human with goat legs.
Masculinity is inherent to the satyr concept, so it's the concept that needs modifying. The mechanics don't change based on what's under the loincloth.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
