# New Race for Review - Minotaur (civilized)



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

Here is the first draft of a minotaur race for players. Comments appreciated.

Here is the quick and dirty, PDF contains the full details of the racial feats, paragon path, etc.

*MINOTAUR* (Civilized)
_Proud, honorable, nomadic warriors with a deep natural connection to their primal nature and a love of physical pursuits and competition._

RACIAL TRAITS

*Average Height:* 7’ 1” – 7’ 5”
*Average Weight:* 320 – 350 lb.

*Ability Scores:* +2 Strength, +2 Charisma
*Size:* Medium
*Speed:* 6 squares
*Vision:* Normal

*Languages:* Minotaur, By Background
*Skill Bonuses:* +2 Athletics, +2 Nature

*Goring Charge:* You may use _goring charge_ as an encounter power.

*Minotaur Weapon Proficiency:* You gain proficiency with the battleaxe and the greataxe.

*Oversized:* You can use weapons of your size or one size larger than you as if they were your own size.

*GORING CHARGE* -- Minotaur Racial Power
_You charge the enemy and gore them with your horns._
*Encounter <> Weapon
Standard Action -- Melee* weapon
*Target:* Target: One creature
*Attack:* Strength +2 vs. AC
_Increase to +4 at 11th level, +6 at 21st level._
*Special:* You must charge as part of this attack.
*Hit:* 1d6 + Strength modifier damage, and the target is knocked prone.
_Increase damage to 2d6 + Strength modifier at 11th level, 3d6 + Strength modifier at 21st level._


Minotaurs are brawny and tough creatures unafraid of throwing their weight around in a fight. They are highly physical and competitive, and enjoy combat, building, sailing and trading both amongst themselves and with others. Nomadic in culture, Minotaurs wander the world in search of wisdom, challenges and adventure. They are a highly proud and honorable race that are generally peaceful but will fight for the right cause or merely for competition.

Play a minotaur if you want…
✦ To by physically powerful
✦ To be a proud heir to strong and wise heritage.
✦ To be a member of a race that favors the fighter, paladin ranger, and warlord classes (as well as later released Primal classes).

*Change Log:* 23Jul08
* Various grammar/editing fixes.
* Various new feats and tweaks/corrections.

*Change Log:* 14Jul08
* “Gore Proficiency #2” to “Gore Focus”.
* Some grammar and clarifications in descriptive ecology text. (long version only)

*Change Log:* 11Jul08
•	Changed *”Ability Score: +2 Intelligence”* to _”+2 Charisma”_.
•	Dropped *"Gore"*
•	Reduced Height/Weight to match MM stats.

*Change Log:* 07Jul08
•	Corrected some spelling/grammatical errors.
•	Changed _Mighty Blow_ feat prerequisites to STR 17.
•	Changed *”Ability Score: +2 Wisdom or Charisma”* to _”+2 Intelligence”_.
•	Added _Direction Sense_ heroic feat.
•	Dropped _Minotaur Weapon Training_ feat.
•	Dropped _Maze Immunity_ feat.

*Newest Revisions are Attached* - 11Jul08
•	Short version - 2 page PHB style entry + Feats + Paragon path.
•	Full version - 2 page PHB style entry + Feats + Paragon path + Homebrew world Ecology.


----------



## thesquidasaur (Jul 4, 2008)

oh, ok. 
so you just copied it from the mm. . .


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jul 4, 2008)

Where did that first piece of artwork come from?  That's slick!


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

thesquidasaur said:


> oh, ok.
> so you just copied it from the mm. . .




Umm.... was this meant as a troll? 

The only thing taken directly from the _MM_ is their *Goring Charge* and *Oversized* abilities and making _"Ferocity"_ a racial feat, unless you count "Medium size, Normal vision and standard base 6 speed" as copying.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:


> Where did that first piece of artwork come from?  That's slick!



Do a Google Images search for "Minotaur".  Its on the first page of results (5th from the left, second row) for me.


----------



## BartD (Jul 4, 2008)

I think it looks fine, I'd probably allow it. Just three comments:
1. Why "+2 Wisdom or Charisma" when wisdom is mentioned so many places? Also dragonborn already give Str/Cha. So I'd remove the charisma option.
2. Why is Minotaur Weapon Training stronger than the dwarven variant? Why not just +2?
3. Is the race too good for fighters?

Oh, and I like the flavor


----------



## Terwox (Jul 4, 2008)

Battle courage says +5 vs. saves against feat rather than fear.

Minotaur weapon training should be +2 rather than +3 if you want to stay close to original intent.  They will get extra damage due to oversized already.

Maze immunity is a terrible feat.  Nothing in the MM uses maze.

Hulking brute seems overpowered with untyped bonuses for combat advantage.  Does anything in the PHB compare?  This stacks with anything...

For charging action, does charge only not end your turn if you use an AP to do it?

Trample is a great idea.

The editing and presentation are fantastic by the way!


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

BartD said:


> I think it looks fine, I'd probably allow it. Just three comments:  {snip} Oh, and I like the flavor



Thanks.



> 1. Why "+2 Wisdom or Charisma" when wisdom is mentioned so many places? Also dragonborn already give Str/Cha. So I'd remove the charisma option.



I wanted them to be slightly less pigeonholed than just saying one or the other. With the ability to choose Wis or Cha they have more class flexibility since CHA is a tertiary trait for Warlord, a secondary trait for Paladin and primary for Warlock.  Wisdom is only really primary for cleric and tertiary for ranger.  I was also going off the general assumption of how people treated the Half-Elf by most house-rules I see giving them flexibility in their second stat bonus.



> 2. Why is Minotaur Weapon Training stronger than the dwarven variant? Why not just +2?



The primary difference here is melee vs. ranged. Dwarves get a +2 bonus with all Axes and Hammers (this includes melee and ranged weapons).  The Minotaur does not. Instead they gain a +3 bonus but only with melee weapons. I specifically wanted it to be slightly different, even though its the same basic weapon groups. This way they still feel like 2 very different feats. Does +3 seem broken?



> 3. Is the race too good for fighters?



Personally I don't think so. Not any better than a dragonborn or dwarf. But then again, thats why I am asking for feedback.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

Thanks for the comments.



Terwox said:


> Battle courage says +5 vs. saves against feat rather than fear.



Thanks for the typo catch. I'll get that fixed.



> Minotaur weapon training should be +2 rather than +3 if you want to stay close to original intent.  They will get extra damage due to oversized already.



From above...
The primary difference here is melee vs. ranged. Dwarves get a +2 bonus with all Axes and Hammers (this includes melee and ranged weapons). The Minotaur does not. Instead they gain a +3 bonus but only with melee weapons. I specifically wanted it to be slightly different, even though its the same basic weapon groups. This way they still feel like 2 very different feats. 

Does +3 seem broken when compared to not being able to use it on ranged weapons?



> Maze immunity is a terrible feat.  Nothing in the MM uses maze.



Except the Maze spell. Granted its highly situational but I figured including it for completeness might be a good idea. If its really not, I'll drop it.



> Hulking brute seems overpowered with untyped bonuses for combat advantage.  Does anything in the PHB compare?  This stacks with anything...



What do you mean by "anything"?  How would you improve the feat?

The original idea came as an alteration of "Back to the Wall". Perhaps keying off combat advantage is too far less situational than being adjacent to a wall. 

What about making stipulate combat advantage provided by a creature smaller than you?



> For charging action, does charge only not end your turn if you use an AP to do it?



_PHB p.287-288_

Charge is a standard action and carries the stipulation:
*"No Further Actions: After you resolve a charge attack, you can’t take any further actions this turn, unless you spend an action point to take an extra action."*



> Trample is a great idea.



Thanks. Wish I could take credit for it but its just a variant of the Fighter Iron Vanguard's Paragon Path feature "Trample the Fallen".  



> The editing and presentation are fantastic by the way!



Thanks. I take that as a huge compliment as I've been trying hard to get these to match up to the style of the PHB as best I can.


----------



## latinoosvaldo (Jul 4, 2008)

I think you mean brave instead of brace under Minotaur Characteristics, right?

And I think STR 13 for Mighty Swing a too low pre-requisite (specially for a race that earns +2 racial bonus). I would've made it 15 (and maube CON 15 also). It´s a very strong feat that allows any attack power he uses (almost) to simulate the effect of a Tide of Iron or other powers that have that feature as a differential. I think it would also be wise to limit this somehow (maybe restricting to melee basic attacks, or making it work only against defenders that are smaller than the minotaur.

Otherwise, the text and the editing is really great (ti's a shame, tough, that the main image shows only a male minotaur, but that's how life is). You could cut it and stretch it a little (maybe to copy the class image effect on the page), just to clean the empty space below the picture.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

latinoosvaldo said:


> I think you mean brave instead of brace under Minotaur Characteristics, right?



Yup. Thanks for the typo catch. I need new eyes to edit since I miss stuff after having stared at it so long.



> And I think STR 13 for Mighty Swing a too low pre-requisite (specially for a race that earns +2 racial bonus). I would've made it 15 (and maube CON 15 also). It´s a very strong feat that allows any attack power he uses (almost) to simulate the effect of a Tide of Iron or other powers that have that feature as a differential. I think it would also be wise to limit this somehow (maybe restricting to melee basic attacks, or making it work only against defenders that are smaller than the minotaur.



I can see STR 15.  As for only on smaller creatures, that would definitely reduce its usefulness.

Would this be better as a Paragon feat? Or would STR 15 and "on basic attacks" be enough to balance it?



> Otherwise, the text and the editing is really great (ti's a shame, tough, that the main image shows only a male minotaur, but that's how life is). You could cut it and stretch it a little (maybe to copy the class image effect on the page), just to clean the empty space below the picture.



I've tried to edit the art and they don't seem to work so well. Most of the PHB art was specifically drawn to fit that space, but most art is drawn to be more a classic square palate or page shape. Also the only male/female art I could find were some campy (or X rated) WoW Taurens, so that was a no go. Most art tends to be that way, and I cant afford to commission art. lol


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 4, 2008)

> Does +3 seem broken when compared to not being able to use it on ranged weapons?



very yes.   Throwing hammers and axes are weak weapons.

That and dwarves don't have +2 str or oversized weapons.



> Nothing in the MM uses maze.



how about an unfailing sense of orientation?



> I wanted them to be slightly less pigeonholed than just saying one or the other.



yes, but CHA for Bull men?


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

generalhenry said:


> very yes.   Throwing hammers and axes are weak weapons.



But ranged capability isn't weak. However, I can see the point. However making it +2 on melee axes and hammers then makes it less powerful than the dwarven version. Any suggestions?



> how about an unfailing sense of orientation?



How would you word this, since nothing else like it really exists?  Direction sense is basically a Nature check (common DC). Something like this?

*"You have an innate sense of direction and automatically succeed all Nature checks made to determine direction."*




> yes, but CHA for Bull men?



Charisma measures your force of personality, persuasiveness, and leadership - not your looks.  So why not CHA?


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 4, 2008)

> Any suggestions?




drop it.

Dwarves and eladrin have the feats as crutches as they would other wise be wimpy in melee.  Minotaurs do not need the any melee damage boast.  



> *"You have an innate sense of direction and automatically succeed all Nature checks made to determine direction."*




sounds fine



> force of personality, persuasiveness, and leadership




again, bull men?  Minotaurs are best known for being exiled onto islands and hanging out in mazes.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

generalhenry said:


> drop it.
> Dwarves and eladrin have the feats as crutches as they would other wise be wimpy in melee.  Minotaurs do not need the any melee damage boast.



That works. Makes sense after the comments. Getting proficiency in them is enough to show their proclivity for them.



> sounds fine



I'll get that added in. I also think this should drop it back to a heroic feat.



> again, bull men?  Minotaurs are best known for being exiled onto islands and hanging out in mazes.



Only in Greek mythology. That stereotype doesn't match the fluff of the race as written. These minotaurs are more like a cross between (dare I say it...) a WoW Tauren and a Krynnish Minotaur. More outgoing, tribal, nomadic, traders and seagoers.


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 4, 2008)

> Only in Greek mythology.




fair enough.  Though still I'd skip the stat choice.   They're flexible enough without it.


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 4, 2008)

hmm, I just realized why you where thinking cha.   You're stepping on the risi's toes.

Int.     Really it fits them.


----------



## thesquidasaur (Jul 4, 2008)

Khaalis said:


> Umm.... was this meant as a troll?
> 
> The only thing taken directly from the _MM_ is their *Goring Charge* and *Oversized* abilities and making _"Ferocity"_ a racial feat, unless you count "Medium size, Normal vision and standard base 6 speed" as copying.




oh no. i am sorry.
i only saw goring charge. i meant no disrespect.
um, yeah. i just saw the pdf though and it is really good.


----------



## Wonka (Jul 5, 2008)

I like it, fleshed out from the MM Minotaur and I think it works well. Just a few comments.

1) On page 3, the feat box has the Epic Tier feat labeled as Paragon ( ie there are two paragon feat boxes  )

2) As has been stated, Mighty Swing is amazing, should definitely have a steeper str requirement, 15 or 16 seem fair. 

3) As also has been said, the _Maze Immunity_ feat seems practically useless, and really only seems to support the fluff. 

Other than those (mosty have been previously stated) comments, I like the feel and especially the look of the thing, you id a very nice job of making it match the PHB!


----------



## Lokathor (Jul 5, 2008)

4e is designed to only have 10 languages ever because they wanted to cut down on language barriers being a source of problems for PCs. You should probably list something like "Giant, Common" for groups that aren't using expanded language rules.


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 5, 2008)

> 4e is designed to only have 10 languages ever because they wanted to cut down on language barriers being a source of problems for pcs. You should probably list something like "giant, common" for groups that aren't using expanded language rules.




qft


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 6, 2008)

Lokathor said:


> 4e is designed to only have 10 languages ever because they wanted to cut down on language barriers being a source of problems for PCs. You should probably list something like "Giant, Common" for groups that aren't using expanded language rules.




If I were writing for a general release 'official' product I'd have done exactly that, and I recommend that for anyone who wants to drop it into a 'generic' D&D game.

Our homebrew however doesn't like the idea that every creature, race, culture, nation, etc. in the world shares the same base language. In the homebrew this was written for, Minotaurs speak minotaur, and can gain additional languages based on their background.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 7, 2008)

Change Log: 07Jul08
•	Corrected some spelling/grammatical errors.
•	Changed _Mighty Blow_ feat prerequisites to STR 17.
•	Changed *”Ability Score: +2 Wisdom or Charisma”* to _”+2 Intelligence”_.
•	Added _Direction Sense_ heroic feat.
•	Dropped _Minotaur Weapon Training_ feat.
•	Dropped _Maze Immunity_ feat.


----------



## Ingolf (Jul 7, 2008)

Khaalis said:


> If I were writing for a general release 'official' product I'd have done exactly that, and I recommend that for anyone who wants to drop it into a 'generic' D&D game.
> 
> Our homebrew however doesn't like the idea that every creature, race, culture, nation, etc. in the world shares the same base language. In the homebrew this was written for, Minotaurs speak minotaur, and can gain additional languages based on their background.




Well, yes . . . except - when you post something like this to ENWorld and ask for feedback, you have to expect us to provide that feedback as if you were writing for a generic release. So, you might as well write that way and house-rule things to fit your specific setting, which after all is what everyone else does anyway.

ETA - Oh, and I really like the write-up, with the exception of Mighty Swing, which strikes me as rather too powerful, as it replaces the Fighter Tide of Iron completely and augments everything else. And all of this at the Heroic tier, no less.

Consider making it a Paragon Tier feat, changing the requirements to Constitution 15 and making it situational - only with Combat Advantage, or (my choice) only on Opportunity Attacks, which would bring it in-line with Heavy Blade Opportunity while still retaining the flavor. Otherwise it's effectively the same thing as giving all Minotaur characters a Fighter at-will power for the cost of a feat - a bargain at twice the price.


----------



## Verision (Jul 7, 2008)

*Natual Attacks*

I have a feeling I'm going to get yelled at for saying this (since I've been yelled at it every time I've brought it up on the D&D forums) but I don't think there is such things as "Natual Attacks" in 4e (I.E. the "Gore" ability). 
The reason I say this is not because I've found a rule that says so specifically, but because not one of the official PC races has a natural attack (not even the Minotaur...). 
I understand the reason for wanting to add in a natual attack, but if you are trying to make a balanced Minotaur (which is better than the short writeup in the MM while still being balanced against the "core" races) then I really think you have to drop the Gore ability. I know I wouldn't allow a race with a natural attack in one of my games; at least not until I see an official race with a natural attack. 

That's just my two cents.

Good job on the writeup.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 7, 2008)

Verision said:


> I know I wouldn't allow a race with a natural attack in one of my games; at least not until I see an official race with a natural attack.




Is a natural attack really that bad?  Consider this particular example: Giving the minotaur Gore is effectively giving it a feat that grants +2 to unarmed attack rolls and increases damage to d6, with the caveat that it's always treated as an off-hand weapon.  Comparing that to Weapon Focus and some fighter abilities, that seems balanced so far.

You can't enchant it (unless I've missed something and you can already enchant unarmed strikes, in which case it's still balanced anyway) and it doesn't matter that it's attached to his head unless you really really really want to sunder or disarm PC weapons for some reason.  What's so bad about that?


----------



## Verision (Jul 7, 2008)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Is a natural attack really that bad? Consider this particular example: Giving the minotaur Gore is effectively giving it a feat that grants +2 to unarmed attack rolls and increases damage to d6, with the caveat that it's always treated as an off-hand weapon. Comparing that to Weapon Focus and some fighter abilities, that seems balanced so far.
> 
> You can't enchant it (unless I've missed something and you can already enchant unarmed strikes, in which case it's still balanced anyway) and it doesn't matter that it's attached to his head unless you really really really want to sunder or disarm PC weapons for some reason. What's so bad about that?




And that's the type of answer I expected (minus the yelling). 

I don't know if it's really "that bad", and I agree with your reasoning behind why it might not be "that bad", but that's not the point. I don't think Natural Armour was "that bad", or so overpowered that it should be removed from the game entirely, but it was. I believe Natural Attacks have also gone the way of the dodo, so it doesn't really matter if its overpowered/gamebreaking or near-fluff/harmless; if Natrual Attacks have been removed the same way Natural Armour has, then you can't make a homebrew race with a Natrual Attack and expect it to be balanced.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 7, 2008)

Verision said:


> And that's the type of answer I expected (minus the yelling).
> 
> I don't know if it's really "that bad", and I agree with your reasoning behind why it might not be "that bad", but that's not the point. I don't think Natural Armour was "that bad", or so overpowered that it should be removed from the game entirely, but it was. I believe Natural Attacks have also gone the way of the dodo, so it doesn't really matter if its overpowered/gamebreaking or near-fluff/harmless; if Natrual Attacks have been removed the same way Natural Armour has, then you can't make a homebrew race with a Natrual Attack and expect it to be balanced.




Ah, so it's the fact that it's not already there, rather than "OMG that must be broken!"  Gotcha.  A better reason, I think, though I still disagree.

Let me see if I can frame my argument to address those concerns, then.  I would have to bring up four points:

1) *4e's guiding principle is exceptions-based design.*  In the PHB they say you can't have darkvision for PC races because it's too different...then some of the MM races get darkvision.  In the Power Description part of PHB Chapter 3 they state that area attacks affect all creatures in the area...yet many powers state "all enemies in the area" or "all allies in the area."  Abilities such as flight, invisibility, and teleportation are said to be way too good for Heroic-level play...yet Eladrin and Warlocks can get short-range teleportation at 1st level and the Gnome can turn invisible.  And so forth.

2) *There are no examples of natural armor yet.*  I wouldn't be surprised if the eventual druid has a _stoneskin_ ability that grants it, or some race gains natural armor through an ability.  And remember, since bonuses are now classified by source (power, feat, etc.) rather than type (profane, luck, etc.) any racial bonus to AC (or power bonus if the power is a Polymorph ability, assuming they get that working) could be considered natural armor.

3) *Crunch over Fluff.*  Powers are balanced on the assumption that a level X power can have Y effect, whether it's a magical blast, sword swing, fist to the face, or something else.  The Power Description section actually states this time around "The given flavor is optional, change it if you wish."  Thus, as long as a natural weapon has equivalent advantages and disadvantages to a regular weapon, it's basically a regular weapon, and thus nothing new.

4) *Natural attacks are equivalent to at-will powers.*  Getting an at-will (rather than encounter) racial power already exists--human, at least, and perhaps a race in the MM which I don't recall right now.  So consider: If the dragonborn can deal 1d6 damage in a Close blast 3 with +2 to the attack roll as an encounter power, and a human can get _magic missile_ at Ranged 10 and 2d4 damage, I'd say something like, oh, 1d6 damage at Melee 1 with +2 to the attack roll should be about equal to an at-will, right?

Based on (1), you shouldn't discount it just because it's not in the PHB; based on (2), you can assume that it will make it into some PHB or other book sooner or later; based on (3), since sunder and disarm are basically out of 4e and you can't enchant natural weapons, the advantages and disadvantages of natural and artificial weapons balance out; and based on (4) the ability is approximately equivalent to racial powers that came before.

Better?


----------



## redrover (Jul 7, 2008)

Read and enjoyed the write-up.


  Just a few notes about the updates (I was a little slow getting off the bulk piece, so please bear with...)

*Mighty Blow: *In my experience, assuming that an attribute limit is any sort of balancer is nothing but trouble. A power that is broken at Str 10 will still be broken at Str 18, you've just ensured that fewer people have access, and your game only remains unbroken until you get someone with a high enough stat to access it.
     Suggest if you have a balance problem that you recast the power or move it to a level where it won't be broken, if there is one.


*Intelligence +2: * I have doubts about this change. First, traditionally and in 4e, minotaurs are about as big and dumb as they come. No iteration of minotaurs in any game or literature I've seen suggests the racial average for Intelligence is above Human norms. Specific individuals, yes. The masses, no.
     On the other hand, by spiking Wisdom, you decrease their Nature skills and Perception skills, which every source I've ever seen has pegged _significantly_ above human norms.
     Even going back to Constitution would be, IMO, superior to boosting Intelligence here. At least _that_ would be consistent with the MM source.
    I agree that minotaurs should have a shot at Warlord, but I suggest the type of Warlord we see would rule by strength of personality and not by intellect. And that's Charisma. I think your original call on this one was right on the money, and I am disappointed to see it change.

*Direction Sense:* While default monster minotaurs traditionally have this, I would question Heroic Tier for 4e. The "book" minotaurs are 10 HD+, mostly above, which suggests that the Paragon Tier might be more appropriate.
    In my first post (submitted below), I suggested a configuration for the direction sense at Epic Tier that could just as well be placed at Paragon Tier. 

*Minotaur Training Feat:* no comment

Side Comment on *Natural Weapons:*
     They are briefly mentioned in the PH material on the Unarmed Weapon Group (p216), but all the support material (such as a definition in the *Glossary*) is absent. Currently they seem to be in limbo until WotC either cleans up the scraps or provides enough material to play with.
      The gore attack needs to stay. The creature has it in the current MM and attacks with it; you can't very well take it away from players without putting a major hit on their "suspension of disbelief". You can control it, maybe build a few feats around it. If you take it out, you lose something important from the core concept.
      In earlier editions "natural weapons" was the term used to define that the penalties associated with human unarmed attacks were not applied to the monsters with significant claw, horn, teeth, tongue, tail, etc. attacks. In other words, since "unarmed" attacks had significant game penalties, the term "natural weapons" was used to designate attacks by monsters that were not subject to "unarmed" penalties.
      Personally I have difficulty envisioning how something with natural weapons is "unarmed" or how teeth, horns, and claws can be considered "improvised weapons" when they are what all the natural/bestial monsters attack with, but your mileage may vary.
      "Natural weapons" is proving as elusive as "Stance" in these books.



Following is my original post (_finally_ posted here).



Read and enjoyed the write-up.

Some notes: 

Your minotaur player race is taller and heavier than the MM Racial Trait default (MM p278). However, the MM Minotaur Lore DC 15 (MM p 191) states that the civilized minotaurs are smaller than savage minotaurs. Perhaps keep the MM default for the civilized ones and save the higher figures for the savage minotaurs?

 That said, I do like your departure from Constitution to Wisdom/Charisma as the secondary attribute. Low cunning has long been part of the minotaur portfolio, and I like the idea of them branching out into the Warlord class.

*Goring Charge:* Would the Attack be “Strength *+3*”  (+2 prof  + 1 charge)?

  I have long thought minotaur characters have some interesting core challenges.

  A_ tweak or two to consider--_


  RACIAL TRAITS     
*
Bullheaded:* You have a +2 racial bonus to your Intimidate skill, a -3 racial penalty to your Diplomacy skill, and a +1 racial bonus to your Will Defense.

(The first speaks to their size and strength in general, the second to their bluntness, perceived arrogance, and the suspicion with which other races regard them. The suggested penalty specifically dovetails with the Skill Focus feat to net out to zero. The third is a consistent theme element. Overall, I consider this a slight gain for the minotaur, as defense modifiers are IMO worth more than skill modifiers.)

*Dimwitted:* You cannot take any Intelligence-based skills when you choose a class. You must use the Skill Training feat to acquire Intelligence-based skills. In addition, you have a -2 penalty to Intuition skill checks.

(Again, snuggling up to the MM descriptive text and adapting it to a PC treatment. This also provides something of a cultural rationale for the stress on honor—falling for lies and fast talk might be a racial vulnerability for which they have compensated socially.)


*Fearless: *This aspect may need strengthening. Maybe make Battle Courage a race trait…

_Battle Courage  =>_ The *Bold* racial trait (cf Halflings). 

  (The fearlessness of minotaurs strikes me as a core racial trait – a 45% vulnerability to fear as a racial default just seems too high to me.)

_Battle Courage_, the feat, might instead add a +2 feat bonus to fear saves and a +1 feat bonus to Will defense.

(This would boost fear saving throws to 90% with the feat, leaving room for a power or enhancement bonus before the save becomes completely automatic. Note that, in sum, the suggestions actually raise Will Defense by +2 total. Also one gets the chance to pick between this feat and Iron Will, which allows some incremental slanting within the race.)


  IMO the good & bad of this small package mostly nets out, and captures a bit more of the classic archetype.

  On the off-chance minotaur PCs turn out to be too powerful, here is another racial item you might add if you need it:

*Naturally Clumsy:* You have a -2 racial penalty to Stealth and Acrobatics, and a -2 racial penalty to Bluff. 

  (Can you say “bull in a china shop”?  I know we don’t like to lumber PCs with disadvantages in 4e, but not putting them in when it’s thematic ultimately narrows the range of effects we can create--like an artist throwing away half his palette. 
     That said, to soften this trait, I’d throw out the Acrobatics penalty first. Favoring a Bluff penalty may seem counterintuitive, but may be more in keeping with both the honorable truthiness of the race and would tend to discourage minotaurs from, say, using feints in a fight. Subtlety is not a racial strongpoint. On the other hand, if implementing all of these puts too much drag on the race, then this is the first trait I’d throw under the bus.)

  [Extra For Savage Minotaurs]
  There are so many differences between the “savage” and “civilized” minotaurs that it may be best to assume PCs will be of the civilized variety for now – and leave the savage ones until we get an official barbarian build.

  For example, the savage minotaurs should probably have the following from their demonic blood.

*Demonic Senses: *You have low-light vision and a +1 racial bonus to Perception skill checks.

(OK, so I filed the serial numbers off *Dragonborn Senses*. Sue me.)

(This makes them both better suited for a subterranean environment and echoes the tendency for civilized individuals to lose some of the finely tuned senses that primitives retain.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINOTAUR FEAT IDEAS

HEROIC TIER

*Horn Slash*
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur.
*Benefit:* You can use a move action to slash with your horns as a primary attack. You gore an adjacent opponent for 1d6 + 2 + Strength modifier damage.

  (This gives the horns a combat feat that allows scope for tactical positioning. Note: The +2 is the horn proficiency bonus.)
  (I confess I’m a little confused by the MM horn damage – deducting the Strength mod only leaves a +1 proficiency bonus for the horns, which seems low. I like your +2 better. Maybe someone from WotC would like to comment on how monster stats were built? Maybe use the minotaur as an example?)

  PARAGON TIER

*Rampaging Bull *
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur.
*Benefit:* At the instant you are bloodied, you can choose to declare a rampage. While rampaging, your melee attack has a +1 bonus and your damage has a +2 bonus. While you rampage you may use features, feats, powers, and exploits that either can cause damage or that move you closer to your opponents, but none other. At the end of your first turn in which you not make a melee attack with your standard action, the rampage ends. If you have more than one feat or power that can be triggered in this way, then you must choose one at most.

  (This requires the minotaur to keep moving forward and attacking if he wants to keep the bonuses going. I expect players will have fun coming up with combinations to maximize their duration here. The wording is precise here, to allow players to fiddle with, say, action points.)

*Relentless Pursuit*
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur.
*Benefit:* When an adjacent opponent steps, shifts, slides, is pulled, or is pushed away from you, you may immediately follow the opponent up to two squares, shifting into squares the opponent vacates. This shift does not subject you to attacks of opportunity. You may use this feat once per round.

  (I favor deliberately allowing the minotaur the ability to outrun his support – then find out if the player is astute enough to compensate. I hope they are, I like to see them win.) 

  (Something interesting happens with teleport here. The only square vacated by a teleporting opponent is the one he stood in. As he never enters other squares between that one and his destination, the minotaur advances only one square.)

                          (  “Duh…Where’d he go?” )

  EPIC TIER FEATS

*Epic Direction Sense (replaces Maze Immunity)*
*     Prerequisites: *Wis 15, any two feats that increase your Perception skill.
*     Benefit:* You are never lost. You can unerringly find your way to any location that you have actually been to. You are immune to the effects of the _Maze_ power and similar magic or psychic effects. This feat does not reveal compass directions and functions only when you have a specific destination (a location) in mind. You can get an directional intuition by using a minor action.

  (I am not certain that this should be restricted to minotaurs, though I don’t offhand recall any other specific monsters that have this ability. The directional indication is on the order of   “  that-a-way  ...  (*points*)

(Actually, two perception adds are pretty easy, three might be more in line with an Epic Tier ability. Don't have a good enough handle on the opportunity costs of different advancement trees yet to comment.)

*Implacable Nemesis *
*Prerequisites:* Minotaur, Relentless Pursuit.
*Benefit: *You can replace one of your At-Will exploits with the _Implacable Nemesis_ feat exploit for an encounter. You can decide to replace your exploit any time in the encounter before you use it, but you cannot replace an At-Will exploit you have already used in the encounter. 

*Implacable Nemesis*                                                                                                    Feat Exploit
*Encounter + Martial  *
*Free Action     Melee*
*Trigger: *Your Relentless Pursuit leaves you adjacent to your original opponent.
*Effect:* You may gore, bull rush, or trample your opponent immediately, as if you had charged. If you are marked by someone other than your opponent, you ignore that attack penalty when you make this attack. You are still subject to any damage ignoring a mark may deal.

("As if you had changed" means you get the +1 attack bonus. You don't have to go the charge distance, that's the 'as if' part.)


*Mind Surge*
*Prerequisites:* Minotaur, Wisdom 13+, Con 15+
*Benefit:* You can, with a great effort of will and stamina, throw off certain conditions that hinder you. At the end of your turn, you can use three of your personal healing surges to gain a +5 saving throw bonus against a dazed, dominated, psychic, or mind-affecting continuing condition. If you have less than three personal healing surges remaining, then you cannot use this feat. If you fail, the healing surges are still expended. You can use this feat only once per day.

  (I’m not completely satisfied with the cost on this one. It has to hurt without being crippling. The suggested cost can be not quite offset by one selection of the Durability feat. Seems about right to me but needs testing. Although I think Con is more important to this feat than Wis, I consider a change to Wis 15/Con 15) without impact, balance-wise.)


*Superior Senses*
*Prerequisites:* Minotaur, Perception 21
*     Benefit: *When the DM announced you are surprised, you can immediately roll a Perception check. If it is successful, then you are not surprised. Otherwise, you are surprised. You can use this feat once per surprise situation.

  (The wording here specifically allows for an encounter with multiple surprises. The minotaur would check for each.  The is based on an earlier edition minotaur description that gave flat immunity to surprise. Automatic effects are tremendous leverage points in a game, and any time you can get rid of one, it's usually a good thing. Unless, of course, an automatic effect has greater plot potential--for example, the direction sense ability, which has a wonderful effect toward focusing party travel.

For example, in 4e, a flyer going above its maximum altitude automatically crashes. Hmm...I have a power that pushes opponents--
         "Mr. DM, I'm pushing that red dragon...UP!")

*Third Wind*
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur. Constitution 13+
*Benefit:* Once per encounter, at the instant you are bloodied, you may expend one of your healing surges as a free action. You do not get the defensive bonuses of a second wind. If you have more than one feat or power that can be triggered in this way, then you must choose one at most.



  (and for a bit of anime…)

*Sundering Strike*
*Prerequisite:* Strength 20, Axe Mastery, two-handed axe or hammer.
*Benefit:* In one encounter, you can replace one of your Daily powers with the _Sundering Strike_ exploit, which has two versions. You chose which form the strike takes when you use it. You can use this feat only once per day, and using this feat expends the daily power as well.


*Sundering Strike*                                                        Feat Exploit
*Daily + Martial          *
*Standard + Move       Melee *Weapon
*Effect:* You attempt to destroy an object or barrier with a single mighty blow. You spend a move action taking the proper stance and an standard action to deliver the strike itself. If your strike is successful, a door or portcullis is shattered to flinders, a wall is sufficiently breached for you to walk through, a ship’s mast is felled, a bridge section collapses, or so on (see the DMG p.64 for information on breaking down doors).
       Alternately, you can strike the ground, creating a _Sundering Burst_ that affects opponents..

*Sundering Burst*                                                                     Feat Exploit
*Daily + Martial          *
*Standard + Move       Melee *Weapon
*Attack: *Str. vs. Ref.
*Hit:* 2d8 thunder damage.
*Miss:* Half damage.
*Special: *The burst travels in a straight line just below ground level. It is one square wide and 12 squares long. However, it stops at non-earth obstacles, such a stream, ditch, or moat. A blocking land construction, such as a wall, a rampart, or a barricade suffers a Sundering Strike at DC +2 and stops the burst short as well. 
*Effect:* Everyone except you who is on the ground and in or adjacent to the burst area must make a saving throw or fall prone.

  (This needs to be as cinematic as possible. The main use is to make a spectacular entrance into a climactic fight.)
  (Hmmm... Can you say Wind Scar? Thought so.) 

  RECOMMENDED MINOTAUR FEATS from PH

  (These are not required, but are typical minotaur selections.)

  (H) Alertness, Durable, Powerful Charge, Skill Training (and Skill Focus) Endurance, Skill Training (and Skill Focus) Intimidation, Skill Training (and Skill Focus) Nature, Skill Training (and Skill Focus) Perception, Tough-- 
  (P) Blood Thirst, Combat Anticipation, Danger Sense, Deadly Axe, Devastating Critical--
  (E) Axe Mastery, Epic Resurgence, Triumphant Attack. 


By the way, my two favorite fiction books about minotaurs are:

_Day of the Minotaur _by Thomas Burnett Swan, and

_Ashes of the Sun_ by Hanovi Braddock.


The first uses a traditional Greek (fey) setting.

The second is a MtG novel that details a minotaur culture (the dialog here is so well done that you can often identify individual minotaurs by their spoken lines). 

As regards the former, one possible variation that might be explored is a Fey background, picking up the *Fey Origin* trait text from the Eladrin.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_--From the OD&D Book "Monsters & Treasure"

_"The Minotaur is classically a bull-headed man (and all of us who
have debated rules are well acquainted with such)..." lol!


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 8, 2008)

> Redrover



Thanks for the input.

*On Mighty Swing:*
I personally, IMO, don’t see this as a balance problem. 

Look at *“Tide of Iron”*
•	At-Will
•	1[W]+STR  + Push 1  + Shift 1
•	Requires a shield (+2 AC), so max damage will be 1d10

Now *“Mighty Swing“*
•	Feat
•	1[W]+STR + Push 1
•	Requires a 2H weapon, so lose AC bonus and do max damage of 1d12 (or 2d6).

By taking the feat it allows a Minotaur to gain ½ of the special ability of _Tide of Iron_.  Even for a Fighter, you are in effect losing 2 AC to gain up to +2 damage (an average of only 1pt).  

The only place I can see this possibly being unbalanced is that it can affect any attack, including other powers.  However, in all reality this is simply a Metapower feat like Weapon Focus, Astral Fire, Dark Fury, Fast Runner, etc. I see it as basically balanced as Shield Push. The only way it might be more balanced is to state that you gain the “Push 1” on basic attacks. However, I think this would make it too weak for a feat.


*On Ability Scores:*
I have to agree on INT vs. CHA now that I have had more time to think about it. Since I haven’t had a lot of feedback on this it’s been hard to judge. However, I too have some difficulty seeing them as gaining an Intelligence bonus. Granted INT doesn’t affect characters the way it used to, but it does open a thematic door to more Minotaur wizards that I think should be normal. With CHA the arcane class of choice would be warlock, which thematically I see as more fitting.  With that said, I do think I’ll swap this back to CHA, not INT.


*On Direction Sesnse:*
My only problem with Paragon tier is that I don’t think the feat is that powerful. Its an auto success on one very small aspect of a single skill. Useful yes. Game breaking, no.


*On Natural Attacks:*
The current version of the race still includes a basic Gore attack, treating it as a melee basic “weapon attack”. They are also retaining the Goring Charge power.


*On Size:*
I had been designing the race from a ‘homebrew’ viewpoint. The MM stats for the minotaur are very low for even a classic minotaur. Also, as was pointed out to me in my Risi racial thread, the weight listed in the MM for even 7’ is quite low. Granted if people want to use the data in the MM they can. This basically falls under the same discussion as languages.  Just because the PHB lists only 10 languages and states that every creature that can speak, speaks common – doesn’t mean that all fan content needs to be the same.  Maybe I’ll do 2 versions – a “purist” version and a “homebrew” version.


*On Going Charge:*
I had specifically not put the +1 attack bonus for a charge into the Power Description, since by listing “You must charge” I had assumed that all effects related to Charging would then be tacked onto the basics of the power. This also includes feats like Fast Runner, Powerful Charge, etc. Does that make sense?   The problem I had is that if it states “You must charge” and the Attack is STR+3, people will still try to add the charge bonus on top of that.


*On Bullheaded:*
While I like the idea, and even though above I say that just because it’s not currently in the PHB doesn’t mean it can’t exist, one thing I think I like about 4E is the removal of inherent penalties. Thus I wouldn’t want to give a racial trait that dumps a -3 penalty on the race out the gate.  However, with that said, I like this as a possible Heroic Tier Racial Feat.


*On Dimwitted:*
As above, this trait is REALLY painful in the 4E system. I don’t think the race really fits an INT bonus, but at the same time this trait makes them basically come across as dumb as rocks and that isn’t true. It also severely gimps any character who wants to make an Arcane minotaur PC which breaks with the core philosophy of any race … any class (which I personally think is a long time past due).

On another note, while I do like some of the ideas you have, many seem very rooted in the 3E mindset of heaping on negatives to ‘pay for’ more powerful traits.  With that said, I personally haven’t ruled out a form of Flaw System for 4E where you might be able to buy such flaws for some minor boost. I haven’t used the system enough yet to see how much that would break the balance though.


*On Battle Courage:*
I like the idea that the minotaur PC can choose or not choose this ability. Not all minotaurs are warriors, and being fearless doesn’t seem to me a racial trait, but a trained trait. Thus, I don’t think it should be a full fledged racial trait. These aren’t bestial feral minotaur that are in the MM. The more I see, the more I think I need to specify in the 1st post that this is a ‘homebrew’ racial minotaur, not the bestial ‘monster’ minotaur. 


*On Horn Slash:*
This breaks one of the cardinal design rules. Feats shouldn’t give you action type abilities, but bonuses or a specific reaction to a trigger. Also, it breaks the economy of actions in that you are granting an Attack from a Move Action.  I think this would be better if written something like this:

_“When you hit an enemy with your Gore weapon, an enemy adjacent to you takes damage equal to your STR modifier.”_


*On Rampaging:*
I think I personally want to hold off on a Rage-style power beyond perhaps a +2 damage when bloodied.  Again, feats are supposed to be simple, and basically situational or flat bonuses, not powers unto themselves.


*On Relentless Pursuit:*
As with many of the other comments, I would simplify this. Perhaps make it a stacking feat to Mighty Swing, along the lines of _”When you use Mighty Swing and push a target, you may shift into the foe’s starting square.”_ This makes it so you take 2 feats to gain the benefits of *Tide of Iron*” with a 2H-Weapon.


*On Epic Feats…*
I’ll have to get to these another time. Need to be moving along but wanted to get something posted.


----------



## Verision (Jul 8, 2008)

redrover said:


> Read and enjoyed the write-up.
> 
> Side Comment on *Natural Weapons:*
> They are briefly mentioned in the PH material on the Unarmed Weapon Group (p216), but all the support material (such as a definition in the *Glossary*) is absent. Currently they seem to be in limbo until WotC either cleans up the scraps or provides enough material to play with.
> ...




"The gore attack needs to stay. The creature has it in the current MM and attacks with it; you can't very well take it away from players without putting a major hit on their "suspension of disbelief". "

No, actually, the Minotaur as a playable race in the back of the MM DOES NOT have a natrual attack (gore). As for the Suspension of Disbelief: please tell me why the Dragonborn in the MM can get wings but I, as a PC, cannot have a Dragonborn with wings (even at level 30)?
The answer is simple: Monsters and PC fucntion under different rules. Monsters get "Natural Attacks" and "Natural Flight"; PCs don't.

The rest of your arguement is valid....to a point. I still believe that the fact of the matter is this: Natural Armour and Natural Attacks DNE (DO NOT EXIST) for PCs in 4e.



From Khaalis:
"The current version of the race still includes a basic Gore attack, treating it as a melee basic “weapon attack”. They are also retaining the Goring Charge power."

Again, read your MM (pg 278). I do not see a Natrual Attack for the Minotaur (Gore) in the entry. 


From Eldritch_Lord 
"3) Crunch over Fluff. Powers are balanced on the assumption that a level X power can have Y effect, whether it's a magical blast, sword swing, fist to the face, or something else. The Power Description section actually states this time around "The given flavor is optional, change it if you wish." Thus, as long as a natural weapon has equivalent advantages and disadvantages to a regular weapon, it's basically a regular weapon, and thus nothing new."

The Crunch is that the Minotaur is now always armed with a Short Sword (well, almost a short sword; the proficiency bonus is 1 less). You can't take it away from him without clipping his horns (and if your Minotaur was in one of my campaigns and got arrested or imprisioned for any reason, that's exactly what would happen) and since he can use powers with his horns, there is no way to disarm him. Sure, a Dragonborn can use a 1d6 breathweapon 1/5mins, but a Minotaur is now the best hand-to-hand martial 'fighter' there is. No other race stands a chance agaisnt a Minotaur if both races are 'unarmed'. Heck, a Halfling has a pretty good chance against a Dragonborn, but a Minotaur will squish both. That definitely is a big advantage and I don't see the equivalent disadvantage to balance it. 

Alright, before people start getting mad at me for continuously coming back to this point, let me say this:

If you (Khaalis) are simply trying to make a more robust version of the Minotaur, that is still relatively balanced, to use in a homebrew campaign, then I don't see a problem with your Minotaur as is.

If you (Khaalis) are trying to make a 4e legal PC race, then the Gore attack has to go. Period. I would tell you the same thing if you homebrewed a race with Natural Armour. It may be relatively balanced, but it is not 4e legal (as far as the current rules are concerned)


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 8, 2008)

_To Verision_
Not to get snipey (and I'm really not trying to be but it will likely come off that way anyway) but technically by your logic, as it comes across to me in reading your post, is that the "Official" Warforged is "*illegal*" also.

*Per the Pre-Release the Warforged gains the following "illegal" entries because they are not in the MM entry*:
* +2 Intimidate
* Living Construct
— You can use attached components and embedded components made for warforged.
— Rather than sleep, warforged spend 4 hours refraining from any strenuous activity. You need to spend 4 hours in this state to gain the same benefits other races gain from taking a 6-hour extended rest. While resting in this low-exertion state, you are fully aware of your surroundings and notice approaching enemies and other events as normal.
* Warforged Mind: +1 Will defense
* The new _Warforged Resolve_ encounter power since it changed.

Also by your logic, ti would seem that the MM entry for the Drow is technically *illegal* (even though its in the book), since in the PHB it says PC races shouldn't get Darkvision, but the PC option for Drow in the MM specifically gives it. IMHO, that is as it should be. Any true Underdark race should have darkvision, but not races that just prefer the night or that sometimes live in caves/underground (that's low-light).



> Again, read your MM (pg 278). I do not see a Natrual Attack for the Minotaur (Gore) in the entry.



Technically I have to argue this. The PC version of the MM minotaur HAS a natural gore attack ... Goring Charge.

1) It is specifically called "Goring"
2) It is an un-keyworded encounter power (No Weapon keyword, which means its natural)
3) It is a Racial power (which means its natural)
4) It deals 1d6 damage -- Not [W] damage, Not 1d4 for standard Unarmed Attack (which indicates a natural weapon that deals more than 1d4)
5) It gets a proficiency bonus as if the gore was a weapon (which means its a weapon - thus a natural weapon)

This is the same "Goring Charge" attack as a standard MM minotaur. It has just been reduced from an At-Will to an Encounter power in the same way a Half-Elf gets an At-Will as an Encounter power. This makes sense since it involves a Charge action and improves damage over levels and is thus a special ability. However, its still clear to me that its a natural weapon being used.

With that said, to be fair, "technically" removing the Gore Racial Trait and leaving JUST the Racial Power would make sense if you want to warp the suspension of disbelief. If the minotaur can use their gore as a weapon at all (as indicated by Goring Charge), then they should be able to make basic attacks with it as well.  

The trade-off is that they don't currently have a way of being enchanted. That alone, if anything, makes the gore Weak since they have no real way of scaling with the rest of the system as you level.  Unlike most racial powers which remain useful at all levels, this one does not. As soon as you hit 6th level your gore is already behind the curve by +1 and increases by another +1 drop behind the curve every 5 levels later.  I do think this is how it should be however. Even a race with a "natural weapon" should prefer to use a manufactured weapon over their 'natural' weapon in most cases anyway. 



> The Crunch is that the Minotaur is now always armed with a Short Sword (well, almost a short sword; the proficiency bonus is 1 less). You can't take it away from him without clipping his horns (and if your Minotaur was in one of my campaigns and got arrested or imprisioned for any reason, that's exactly what would happen) and since he can use powers with his horns, there is no way to disarm him. Sure, a Dragonborn can use a 1d6 breathweapon 1/5mins, but a Minotaur is now the best hand-to-hand martial 'fighter' there is. No other race stands a chance agaisnt a Minotaur if both races are 'unarmed'. Heck, a Halfling has a pretty good chance against a Dragonborn, but a Minotaur will squish both. That definitely is a big advantage and I don't see the equivalent disadvantage to balance it.



To quote you: _"Again, read your"_ Player's Handbook (p56).

Your argument here is mostly moot.  ALL PC races are ALWAYS armed in 4E. 

*Specific Reference:  PHB p56*

"*Weapon:* Many martial powers, as well as several divine powers, can be used only if you’re wielding a weapon. *(You can use an unarmed attack as your weapon.)* A weapon’s reach or range determines the reach or range of a power it’s used with."​

The only difference between a PC punching you in the face or kneeing you in the groin for 1d4 damage and a PC stabbing you with a dagger for 1d4 damage is that a dagger grants a proficiency bonus (if you are proficient). This is the same basic mechanic that people have been giving to the various Monk classes ... _"+2 proficiency bonus with the Unarmed weapon group"_.  With the Minotaur it makes perfect sense (to me at least) that a pair of large pointy horns are going to hurt more than a fist or knee or kick and thus should do slightly more damage (1d6 vs. 1d4).

Edit: And this would then support the fact that a TWF ranger can use an unarmed attack as one of their weapons. 

The other difference is that you can buy an enchanted dagger and not an enchanted body part - unless of course you are a Warforged.

EDIT: Oh, and the other thing that is different is that there are no powers that specifically key off the "unarmed" weapon group like their are light blades, polearms, etc. So this is yet another factor that shows a weakness in the "natural weapon" over a standard weapon.

Additionally, there is no such thing as being *Disarmed* in core 4E so this is a moot argument as well.  


In the end, the only "advantage" the Minotaur has is that they gain a proficiency bonus to their gore attack and an average of +1 damage with it.  In fact, the more I think about it, the way it was suggested earlier may simply work better.

*Gore:* Your unarmed attacks gain a +2 racial bonus to attack and deal 1d6 damage.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 8, 2008)

Verision said:


> The Crunch is that the Minotaur is now always armed with a Short Sword (well, almost a short sword; the proficiency bonus is 1 less). You can't take it away from him without clipping his horns (and if your Minotaur was in one of my campaigns and got arrested or imprisioned for any reason, that's exactly what would happen) and since he can use powers with his horns, there is no way to disarm him. Sure, a Dragonborn can use a 1d6 breathweapon 1/5mins, but a Minotaur is now the best hand-to-hand martial 'fighter' there is. *No other race stands a chance agaisnt a Minotaur if both races are 'unarmed'*. Heck, a Halfling has a pretty good chance against a Dragonborn, but a Minotaur will squish both. That definitely is a big advantage and I don't see the equivalent disadvantage to balance it.




Emphasis mine.  Like I said, it's only an issue if you're the type of DM who really really really likes to disarm PCs and/or sunder their weapons.

When is the _only situation_ having a natural weapon will come up?  When you, the DM, decide that you want them to be helpless and imprisoned with weapons taken away.  Under that situation, yes, 1d6 at +2 will be better than 1d4 at +0.  However, when they get their weapons back, the halfling can grab a +X short sword with 1d6 at +3 or +4 and the minotaur will still just have his horns...unless he, too, grabs a weapon, in which case it's immaterial.

And that completely leaves out the issue of other races' powers.  So what if the minotaur has a natural weapon?  The eladrin can teleport out and the dragonborn can breathe his breath weapon.  If you're going to restrict the eladrin's teleport by blocking off all LoE and restrict the dragonborn's breath weapon...somehow...you can easily have the minotaur's neck shackled to a cell wall (for example) so he can't use his horns.  And class powers.  How do you stop a fighter from using _cleave_?  Tie him up.  How do you stop a wizard from using _magic missile_?  Mage shackles or the like.

If you insist that every race _must _be able to be made completely helpless, because you can't deal with a situation where one race is superior at something when that situation comes up <1% of the time, there are ways to do it for everything, even natural weapons.


----------



## Verision (Jul 8, 2008)

*Maybe it's all in the presentation?*

First, I'm glade you're not getting snipey. I like civil arguements, even when I completely disagree with the person I'm arguring with. (In other words, no offense taken and no offense meant). Alright, let's get down to it:



Khaalis said:


> _To Verision_
> Not to get snipey (and I'm really not trying to be but it will likely come off that way anyway) but technically by your logic, as it comes across to me in reading your post, is that the "Official" Warforged is "*illegal*" also.
> 
> *Per the Pre-Release the Warforged gains the following "illegal" entries because they are not in the MM entry*:
> ...




By "illegal" I mean that the concept you are working with has been intentionally removed from this edition (there are only two times when the words "Natural Attack" appear in the Player's Handbook; they are both under "Unarmed Attacks"), not that what you're writing is not in the MM. I am contending that Natural Armour and Natural Attacks have been intentionally removed from the game. 



Khaalis said:


> Also by your logic, ti would seem that the MM entry for the Drow is technically *illegal* (even though its in the book), since in the PHB it says PC races shouldn't get Darkvision, but the PC option for Drow in the MM specifically gives it. IMHO, that is as it should be. Any true Underdark race should have darkvision, but not races that just prefer the night or that sometimes live in caves/underground (that's low-light).




Again, I think you mistook my meaning when I said illegal. If Darkvision had been completely removed from 4e and you homebrewed a Drow race with Darkvision, then I would say it's not 4e legal. But, since Darkvision is still part of 4e, homebrewing a race with Darkvision is not illegal. 



Khaalis said:


> Technically I have to argue this. The PC version of the MM minotaur HAS a natural gore attack ... Goring Charge.
> 
> 1) It is specifically called "Goring"
> 2) It is an un-keyworded encounter power (No Weapon keyword, which means its natural)
> ...




A natual weapon is being used, but in the same way that the Dragonborn's breath weapon is a "natual weapon". You will notice that the Dragonborn cannot make a claw attack or a bite attack, even though every "humanoid dragon" race in 3.X had an actual Natural Weapon. 

In other words, I see these as being two completely seperate ideas. An encounter power that uses something natual to the race (Goring Charge and Dragon Breath) vs an at-will Natural Weapon that cannot be removed from the race. 



Khaalis said:


> With that said, to be fair, "technically" removing the Gore Racial Trait and leaving JUST the Racial Power would make sense if you want to warp the suspension of disbelief. If the minotaur can use their gore as a weapon at all (as indicated by Goring Charge), then they should be able to make basic attacks with it as well.




Again, I point you to the fact that a PC Dragonborn cannot get wings and the Dragonborn in the MM can. 
Please don't make "Suspension of Disbelief" arguements about D&D mechanics. They just don't make sense. Dragonborn have large, powerful jaws and long, sharp teeth, and yet their "bite" (I.E. unarmed attack) only does 1d4 with no proficiency bonus (exactly the same as a halfling punching you in the mouth). If that does not "warp your suspension of disbelief", then why does the Minotaur goring you for the same damage "warp your suspension of disbelief"?

If your Minotaur hits someone with his horns, then it's just an unarmed attack in the same way that a Dragonborn biting someone is just a normal unarmed attack. 
The only reason you think it warps the "Suspension of Disbelief" is that you have read the rules in the MM and you know the mechanic behind the attack and you know that if the PC does it it's not the exact same mechanic. Suspension of Disbelief should not include the mechanic (which is something that cannot be accessed from within the game) but should only include the Fluff (I.E. the way the characters in the game would view it. To a person in the game, a minotaur hitting someone with his horns doesn't change between a PC and a Monster; they can't see what die you're rolling or what modifiers you're adding)



Khaalis said:


> The trade-off is that they don't currently have a way of being enchanted. That alone, if anything, makes the gore Weak since they have no real way of scaling with the rest of the system as you level. Unlike most racial powers which remain useful at all levels, this one does not. As soon as you hit 6th level your gore is already behind the curve by +1 and increases by another +1 drop behind the curve every 5 levels later. I do think this is how it should be however. Even a race with a "natural weapon" should prefer to use a manufactured weapon over their 'natural' weapon in most cases anyway.




I've already stated that as far as the question "Does the Gore attack REALLY make that much difference, over the course of 30 levels, as far as power balancing" is concerned, my answer is NO. That doesn't mean you aren't using a concept that was intentionally left out of 4e. 



Khaalis said:


> To quote you: _"Again, read your"_ Player's Handbook (p56).
> 
> Your argument here is mostly moot. ALL PC races are ALWAYS armed in 4E.
> 
> ...




Again, you are arguing balance, I'm arguing leaglity. I've already stated my position on balance, can we please talk about legality? (I.E. whether or not the concepts you are using are part of 4e)



Khaalis said:


> Additionally, there is no such thing as being *Disarmed* in core 4E so this is a moot argument as well.




There is no such thing as a combat menuver called Disarm (I.E. like Bullrush or Charge). That doesn't mean someone can't knock you out and take your weapons (I.E. Disarming you). 



Khaalis said:


> In the end, the only "advantage" the Minotaur has is that they gain a proficiency bonus to their gore attack and an average of +1 damage with it. In fact, the more I think about it, the way it was suggested earlier may simply work better.
> 
> *Gore:* Your unarmed attacks gain a +2 racial bonus to attack and deal 1d6 damage.




Now, this sounds (emphasis on 'sounds') more 4e legal. If you just made racial feats for this, then I wouldn't have an arguement (I.E. Feat 1: Must be minotaur; Gain +2 to unarmed attack rolls. Feat 2: Must be minotaur; Your unarmed attacks deal 1d6 dmg. Heck, you could make it just one feat that does both, if you really wanted to), but I still think having a Natrual Attack/Weapon as a base ability for a PC race is "illegal".


I'm starting to think that we might have to "agree to disagree" on this one.


----------



## Verision (Jul 8, 2008)

*Am I crazy? Cast your vote by texting "Yes" or "No" to 111-2222!*

Sorry for the double-post, but Eldritch_Lord posted while I was writing my first post and I wanted to address his post.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> Emphasis mine. Like I said, it's only an issue if you're the type of DM who really really really likes to disarm PCs and/or sunder their weapons.
> 
> When is the _only situation_ having a natural weapon will come up? When you, the DM, decide that you want them to be helpless and imprisoned with weapons taken away. Under that situation, yes, 1d6 at +2 will be better than 1d4 at +0. However, when they get their weapons back, the halfling can grab a +X short sword with 1d6 at +3 or +4 and the minotaur will still just have his horns...unless he, too, grabs a weapon, in which case it's immaterial.
> 
> ...





Like I said, as far as balance is concerned, I really don't see it being THAT much of an issue (for the reasons you have stated, among others).
It's more of a "the designers took this out of the game; therefore you shouldn't put it back in without taking a good long look at how it effects the game" arguement that I am making. 


Can someone please tell me whether or not I am crazy here? I.E. Whether you agree with me or not, can you at least see where I am coming from with this arguement? Or do you see my arguement as being completely out to lunch?
If you think I'm completely out to lunch, then I'll stop making this arguement and let you carry on your merry way (I don't want to completely derail the rest of the conversations that have been going on with your homebrew if you think my arguement is baseless).


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 8, 2008)

Verision said:


> Like I said, as far as balance is concerned, I really don't see it being THAT much of an issue (for the reasons you have stated, among others).
> It's more of a "the designers took this out of the game; therefore you shouldn't put it back in without taking a good long look at how it effects the game" arguement that I am making.
> 
> 
> ...




I _can_ see where you're coming from; I just disagree and am trying to change your mind.

I agree that one shouldn't add new elements to the game without thoroughly thinking them through.  Where you and I differ is that I believe that we _have_ thought them through--we've determined that adding natural attacks/armor (1) fits with the 4e design philosophy, (2) would be balanced with the other available options, and (3) minimally effects the game.  I believe that's all we need to do, and having done that, we can add back natural attacks/armor.

Your stance is (as I understand it; correct me if I'm wrong) that (A) we should wait until it's either in the game or a dev gives their opinion on it before adding it, and, failing that, (B) we shouldn't make it an isolated example, like this single race getting it.  To that, I say that (A) it's exceptions-based design, so whether it's in the game or not shouldn't matter after we've completed our analysis (1 through 3 above) and (B) its isolation is what makes it unique, as for instance eladrin wouldn't be nearly as interesting if 3 or 4 races could naturally teleport.

You shouldn't give up on a valid point _only_ because we disagree, but I think you're being too cautious with your design instincts because 4e is new and that you can broaden your horizons a bit.


----------



## Verision (Jul 8, 2008)

*All my base.*

Eldritch_Lord - "I _can_ see where you're coming from; I just disagree and am trying to change your mind."

Well that's good. I was starting to think you all thought I was coming out of left field with this arguement.

Eldritch_Lord - "I agree that one shouldn't add new elements to the game without thoroughly thinking them through. Where you and I differ is that I believe that we _have_ thought them through--we've determined that adding natural attacks/armor (1) fits with the 4e design philosophy, (2) would be balanced with the other available options, and (3) minimally effects the game. I believe that's all we need to do, and having done that, we can add back natural attacks/armor."

Alright, as long as you are saying "We have thought this through and we believe that it only minimally effects the game" and you are not saying "It's a _freaking _*Minotaur*. They have *great honking HORNS! *_Of couse _they do *MORE DAMAGE!!!!!*" then fine; I can let that part of the arguement go. 


Eldritch_Lord - "Your stance is (as I understand it; correct me if I'm wrong) that (A) we should wait until it's either in the game or a dev gives their opinion on it before adding it"

My stance is that natural armour/attacks for PC playable races have been *intentionaly* removed from this edition of D&D. Whether or not I am right can be debated (To my knowledge, none of the rulebooks say "Note to players of the old editions: Natural Armour/Attacks have been removed etc etc"), but if I am right then giving a homebrewed race natural armour/attacks is a no-no regardless of how little it seems to effect the game; at least if you want the homebrew to be an "edition legal" homebrew, and not just a homebrew you're droping in your own personal game for kicks-and-giggles.

Eldritch_Lord - "(B) we shouldn't make it an isolated example, like this single race getting it. To that, I say that (A) it's exceptions-based design, so whether it's in the game or not shouldn't matter after we've completed our analysis (1 through 3 above) and (B) its isolation is what makes it unique, as for instance eladrin wouldn't be nearly as interesting if 3 or 4 races could naturally teleport."

Alright. Hold on a second here. Are you _really _suggesting that the Minotaur will be the only race with a Natural Attack? "It's isolation is what makes it unique"? No other race will have a natural attack and that is what will make the Minotaur a unique PC race?
I ask because the problem I'm seeing is that every second homebrewed race has a natural attack (werewolf/lycanthopes, lizardfolk and other "draconic-humaniod-races-that-aren't-dragonborn", etc, etc). I can hardly see any way to make a case that the Minotaur should be the _one and only _race to get a natural attack. 
If that is what you are saying, and you can come up with even a semi-plausible reason for the Minotaur to be the only race with a natural attack, then I'll conceed all my points and all my base will belong to you. I'm serious.


Also, on the topic of abilities that are unique to a race and thus make the race more interesting: What does giving the Minotaur a Natural Attack really do? 
Does it make the Minotaur unique and interesting? (I would say definitely not)
Does it give the Minotaur an ability it would not otherwise have? (My answer is no: a natural attack is simply an unarmed attack in 4e. Crunchwise it doesn't matter if its the halfling punching you in the chops, the dragonborn biting your neck, or the minotaur goring you midsection: it's all an unarmed attack that does 1d4 dmg. It's not like the minotaur can't gore you just because it doesn't have an ability called "Gore")
Does it help balance out the Minotaur? (again, no)
Is is needed for the "suspension of disbelief"? (not unless your disbelief revolves solely around what dice you roll for what).


Eldritch_Lord - "You shouldn't give up on a valid point _only_ because we disagree, but I think you're being too cautious with your design instincts because 4e is new and that you can broaden your horizons a bit."

I wouldn't have been giving up on the point, I would just be giving up on trying to convince you (and others who have posted in this thread). I.E. I still wouldn't allow a homebrewed race with a natural attack into my campaign even if you all thought I was crazy.

As to being overly cautious and broadening my horizons...Well, I've played in a couple games where people where "play testing" homebrewed races with somewhat...unique...abilities (I'm talking 3.x here). Both times it turned out horribly, as far as I'm concerned (the people who played the characters would argue that fiercly, but that's beside the point). Both times the homebrews were overpowered and made the rest of us look like, well, like pre-TOB fighters compared to Clerics/Durids/Wizards. The campaigns were absolutely no fun because of this. 
It has also been my experience that 99.9% of homebrews lean more towards the overpowered part of the spectrum and only 0.01% lean towards the underpowered portion of the spectrum. That makes me cautious.


----------



## WanderingMystic (Jul 9, 2008)

I really like what you have done with the Minotaur but i feel it overpowered as written.  Proficiency with Battle Axes and Great Axes, Goring Charge, and Oversized, on top of this you are giving them a increased die type and +2 proficiency bonus with unarmed attacks I would make this a feat instead maybe paragon tier.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 9, 2008)

Assuming the following feats... what level would you place it at? I am thinking Heroic.

*GORE PROFICIENCY*
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur
*Benefit:* You gain proficiency in goring with your horns as a weapon. Treat your unarmed attacks as having a +2 proficiency bonus.

*GORE FOCUS*
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur, Gore Proficiency
*Benefit:* You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls with your unarmed attacks. At 11th level, this bonus increases to +2. At 21st level, it increases to +3.


----------



## Verision (Jul 9, 2008)

Khaalis said:


> Assuming the following feats... what level would you place it at? I am thinking Heroic.
> 
> *GORE PROFICIENCY*
> *Prerequisite:* Minotaur
> ...





I don't see any problem making these Heroic teir feats. "Dwarven Weapon Training" gives proficiency with axes and hammers and a +2 to damage, and it's a heroic feat.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 9, 2008)

> A natual weapon is being used, but in the same way that the Dragonborn's breath weapon is a "natual weapon". You will notice that the Dragonborn cannot make a claw attack or a bite attack, even though every "humanoid dragon" race in 3.X had an actual Natural Weapon.
> 
> I point you to the fact that a PC Dragonborn cannot get wings and the Dragonborn in the MM can.




I personally feel that these are bad arguments. Why?

A dragonborn’s breath weapon is a special ability, a breath weapon, not a part of their body like a claw or a bite. Looking at the dragonborn in the MM, none of them get any form of natural weapon attack. They don’t bite, they don’t claw. From the level 5 to level 23 they all use weapons; period.  Minotaurs on the other hand use their horns/gore as an At-Will attack. 

To my view, any way you want to look at – the minotaur DOES use its gore/horns as a weapon. I already decided to give the option as feats though, but it does follow the pattern that minotaurs have a “natural weapon” even if it isn’t Mechanically coined with that term.  

The same argument could go for other creatures.  

As you pointed out I agree that Lizardoflk should NOT have a claw or bite attack since NONE of the MM entries have any such attack. They all attack with weapons (spears, clubs, blowgun).  However, there ARE lizardfolk in the MM that use a Tail Slap as an At-Will attack. This IS a “natural weapon” (again even if it isn’t coined with that term), so an argument could be made to give such an attack to a Lizardfolk PC as an Encounter power in the same way Minotaur gets Goring Charge as an Encounter Power from its parent MM entry’s At-Will power.  I would go so far as to say that Lizardfolk could also gain the appropriate bonuses to unarmed attacks based on the use of their tail as a weapon (it does more damage than a minotaur’s horns after all).

Another example is the Lycanthrope. They DO have natural attacks. They specifically get a “Bite” attack as an At-Will. This all follows the same arguments as above.  Any way you want to look at it, “natural weapons” do exist in 4E, they are just polished up and tucked neatly into the power system that all creatures use. There is really no reason a creature like a Lycanthrope couldn’t get a racial ability along the lines of this.

*Bite Attack* – Lycnathrope Racial Power
_You use your naturally strong jaws and sharp teeth to tear into your foe._
*At-Will
Standard Action -- Melee 1
Target:* One creature
*Attack:* Strength +2 vs. AC
*Hit:* 1d6 (or 1d4)+ Strength modifier damage.

As for dragonborn getting wings in the MM and not the PHB.  That’s a real stretch. “Technically” it’s true yes. However, the only MM dragonborn that gets wings are the Dragonborn Champions, which are level 26. For a PC that would be part of an Epic Destiny or an Epic Feat.  Since there are no Epic Racial feats yet, or Racial Epic Destinies yet – we can’t really say if a dragonborn PC will be able to get them or not.  I am willing to bet they will. It will come in a following book like the Draconomicon or an Advanced Races splatbook like the “Races of” series of 3X where they do more to deepen and expand on the races.  I am certain we will see splatbook expansions with Racial Feats, Racial Paragon Paths and Racial Epic Destinies.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 9, 2008)

Verision said:


> My stance is that natural armour/attacks for PC playable races have been *intentionaly* removed from this edition of D&D. Whether or not I am right can be debated (To my knowledge, none of the rulebooks say "Note to players of the old editions: Natural Armour/Attacks have been removed etc etc"), but if I am right then giving a homebrewed race natural armour/attacks is a no-no regardless of how little it seems to effect the game; at least if you want the homebrew to be an "edition legal" homebrew, and not just a homebrew you're droping in your own personal game for kicks-and-giggles.




They have been removed intentionally from the PHB1 and MM1, not the game, unless I've missed an announcement to that effect.  Summoning was intentionally removed from the PHB1 and MM1--but it's going to be in later books.



> Alright. Hold on a second here. Are you _really _suggesting that the Minotaur will be the only race with a Natural Attack? "It's isolation is what makes it unique"? No other race will have a natural attack and that is what will make the Minotaur a unique PC race?
> I ask because the problem I'm seeing is that every second homebrewed race has a natural attack (werewolf/lycanthopes, lizardfolk and other "draconic-humaniod-races-that-aren't-dragonborn", etc, etc). I can hardly see any way to make a case that the Minotaur should be the _one and only _race to get a natural attack.




No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm arguing that a given ability being unique (at least so far) is a feature, not a bug, and while I was using a bit of hyperbole suggesting that _only_ the minotaur would have it, the point remains that a race having a "schtick" like natural weapons or an eladrin's teleport is a good thing rather than a bad thing.



> If that is what you are saying, and you can come up with even a semi-plausible reason for the Minotaur to be the only race with a natural attack, then I'll conceed all my points and all my base will belong to you. I'm serious.




I'll get to work on that, then. 



> Also, on the topic of abilities that are unique to a race and thus make the race more interesting: What does giving the Minotaur a Natural Attack really do?
> Does it make the Minotaur unique and interesting? (I would say definitely not)
> Does it give the Minotaur an ability it would not otherwise have? (My answer is no: a natural attack is simply an unarmed attack in 4e. Crunchwise it doesn't matter if its the halfling punching you in the chops, the dragonborn biting your neck, or the minotaur goring you midsection: it's all an unarmed attack that does 1d4 dmg. It's not like the minotaur can't gore you just because it doesn't have an ability called "Gore")
> Does it help balance out the Minotaur? (again, no)
> Is is needed for the "suspension of disbelief"? (not unless your disbelief revolves solely around what dice you roll for what).




The natural attack is basically the equivalent of having a short sword attached to your forehead--a halfling can punch you, but it's just a punch; a dragonborn can bite you, but its teeth are basically a human's or a dog's teeth, sharpness-wise; a minotaur, however, can _gore_ you with the _freaking horns_, as you pointed out before.  While I don't care about minotaurs in particular getting natural weapons to represent their horns, it's the principle of natural weapons that sets a race apart.  Granted, it's something effectively invisible in-game (like the elf's reroll), nothing blatantly different, but it's something players would appreciate.



> As to being overly cautious and broadening my horizons...Well, I've played in a couple games where people where "play testing" homebrewed races with somewhat...unique...abilities (I'm talking 3.x here). Both times it turned out horribly, as far as I'm concerned (the people who played the characters would argue that fiercly, but that's beside the point). Both times the homebrews were overpowered and made the rest of us look like, well, like pre-TOB fighters compared to Clerics/Durids/Wizards. The campaigns were absolutely no fun because of this.
> It has also been my experience that 99.9% of homebrews lean more towards the overpowered part of the spectrum and only 0.01% lean towards the underpowered portion of the spectrum. That makes me cautious.




Ah.  Well, speaking as an experienced homebrewer whose players think most of my stuff is pretty well balanced, I'd point out that you need to differentiate _concept_ from _implementation_.

In the wrong hands, natural weapons could be massively overpowered.  "Minotaur horns?  3d8 damage, +5 to attacks, easy.  They're _freaking minotaur horns_!"  They could also be underpowered. "Minotaur horns?  Those unwieldy things?  Sure, 1d6 damage, but a -3 to hit.  You can't maneuver those things at all!"  The _concept_ of natural weapons, however, is simply "weapons that always present and cannot be disarmed or sundered, but also cannot be enchanted."  The concept of natural weapons is a good one, but individual implementations may be over- or underpowered and should be looked out for.  Just because the last two DMs who you playtested [concept X] for sucked at balancing stuff doesn't mean a new DM might be very good at it and make a wonderful [concept X] that you might want to use in all of your games.


----------



## Verision (Jul 9, 2008)

*Why did I spend this much time arguing this point?*



Khaalis said:


> I personally feel that these are bad arguments. Why?
> 
> A dragonborn’s breath weapon is a special ability, a breath weapon, not a part of their body like a claw or a bite. Looking at the dragonborn in the MM, none of them get any form of natural weapon attack. They don’t bite, they don’t claw. From the level 5 to level 23 they all use weapons; period. Minotaurs on the other hand use their horns/gore as an At-Will attack.
> 
> ...





I'm sorry Khaalis, but all your arguements seem to be "The MM says that they get it, so I'm giving it to them". But you're forgetting that Monster Races =/= PC races. Not in 4e, anyway. 
That was one of the major problems with monstrous PC races in 4e. To adequately balance the use of the montrous race as a PC race you needed level adjustments. I hope you can agree that level adjustments have been removed from 4e.
The lowest level Minotaur in the MM is a level 10 Soldier. You are trying to make a PC race that reflects the MM entry, but you seem to be more interested in making the race an accurate reflection of the MM entry and you don't seem to be as interested in making a balanced PC race. That is a mistake. It's a mistake because that is a 3.x mindset.

Aside: Many people who don't like 4e point to the fact that you can't make two monsters fight in 4e. They point to rediculous battles, like a Wolf against the Terrasque and say "If the wolf rolls a 20, and has another wolf flanking for combat advantage, then the wolf knocks the Terrasque prone. That's INSANE. 4e is completely stupid!!!" 
The problem is that they are looking at the MM in a 3.x mindset. In 4e, monsters aren't designed to fight monsters. The reason behind that is the designers said "Monsters are there to fight PCs, not to fight each other, so we aren't going to design them to fight each other". If they had designed them to fight each other, they simply would have added "...knocked prone, if the target is large or smaller" to the wolf entry. 
In the same way, monsters were not designed to be PC races in 4e. PC races were not designed to be monsters, either. The MM entries for the Player's Handbook races have different designs. The Human Berserker has a "Battle Fury" attack, but that doesn't mean you should give all PC humans a "Battle Fury" attack. (Yes, I know that's a bit of a stretch, but I hope you get my meaning).
I believe the design philosophy behind the "Racial Traits" (pg 276) in the MM is to give a plausible PC race of the same FLAVOR as the MM entry. Again, Monsters are designed TO BE MONSTERS ONLY. You can't just say, "I would go so far as to say that Lizardfolk could also gain the appropriate bonuses to unarmed attacks based on the use of their tail as a weapon (it does more damage than a minotaur’s horns after all)." because what you are really saying is "The MM entry IS the PC race". That is wrong. 
(Note also that only ONE of the Lizardfolk MM entries can use it's tail as a weapon. You are suggesting that ALL Lizardfolk PCs should get a "Natural Weapon" based off of that.)
/Aside

Now, I like the feats you wrote up for the "natural attack". I definitely think that racial feats are more appropriate for this sort of ability than just making the ability part of the base racial abilities. I would suggest the same thing for any other homebrew PC race of a MM entry.



....I just finished writing all this and I said to myself:
"Verision, have you even LOOKED at the MM entry for the Minotaur?" and I answered myself "Well, I looked at the Minotaur in the Racial Traits section (pg 276), and I've glanced at the MM entry on pages 190-191, but have I really gone over it with a fine tooth comb?". 
"No", I answered. 
So, I says to myself, I says "You'd better take a good long look at that"
So I do and, low and behold, THE FRIGING MINOTAUR IN THE MM DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A FREAKING GORE ATTACK (aside from the goring charge which is what the PC minotaur gets anyways). You're trying to give the monster a Natual Weapon and it doesn't even have one in the MM. Heck, your "Lizardfolk get a tail slap at-will" makes more sense than this arguement we've been having. I give up. I'm going to subway.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 9, 2008)

Verision said:
			
		

> ....I just finished writing all this and I said to myself:
> "Verision, have you even LOOKED at the MM entry for the Minotaur?" and I answered myself "Well, I looked at the Minotaur in the Racial Traits section (pg 276), and I've glanced at the MM entry on pages 190-191, but have I really gone over it with a fine tooth comb?".
> "No", I answered.
> So, I says to myself, I says "You'd better take a good long look at that"
> So I do and, low and behold, THE FRIGING MINOTAUR IN THE MM DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A FREAKING GORE ATTACK (aside from the goring charge which is what the PC minotaur gets anyways). You're trying to give the monster a Natual Weapon and it doesn't even have one in the MM. Heck, your "Lizardfolk get a tail slap at-will" makes more sense than this arguement we've been having. I give up. I'm going to subway.






"Hey, EL, it looks like Verision hasn't read the monster description of the Minotaur!  Hah!  How could he make an argument based on that!"

"Well, EL, have _you_ read the MM description of the minotaur?"

"Of course I've read the MM, EL!  I read through the first day I got it!  You--er, I--know that!"

"But did you read the minotaur entry?"

"Of course!  I thoroughly examined each and every monstrous race!"

"I mean the minotaur _monster_ entry."

"Well...uh...no.  I was looking more at the new monsters.  Why?"

"Verision says the minotaur doesn't have a natural attack!"

"He says it doesn't have a natural attack!?  That's the dumbest thing I've ever...it doesn't have a natural attack?"

"Nope."

"...really?"

"Nope."

"So why am I arguing for including a natural attack on the minotaur again, EL?"

"Because including natural attacks in the game is a good idea, of course."

"I thought so.  So--"

"...assuming, of course, that the base monster _has_ the natural attack."

"Ah."

"So _not_ in this case."

"Not on the minotaur?"

"Not on the minotaur."

"...do you think Verision would mind if I left too and joined him at Subway?"


----------



## Verision (Jul 9, 2008)

*Well, at least I wasn't the only one*



Eldritch_Lord said:


> "Hey, EL, it looks like Verision hasn't read the monster description of the Minotaur! Hah! How could he make an argument based on that!"
> 
> "Well, EL, have _you_ read the MM description of the minotaur?"
> 
> ...





I guess all my base will never belong to you then, eh?
Don't feel too bad, though. If you meet me at Subway, I'll buy you a sub.
*Verision starts singing "Five dollar foot long" under his breath*

P.S. Very nice presentation of the inner monologue. I nearly soiled my undies laughing.


----------



## WanderingMystic (Jul 9, 2008)

I think both of the feats look balanced as heroic tier feats


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 9, 2008)

Verision said:


> I guess all my base will never belong to you then, eh?




I can still attempt a rationalization, if you want.  I've got a pretty good idea what it would be already; I just need to flesh it out and structure it as a logical proof and we'll be set. 



> P.S. Very nice presentation of the inner monologue. I nearly soiled my undies laughing.




Thanks.  The color-coded "theater directions" format follows that of my very popular Warlock Fluff thread on the Wizards boards (which I'm quite proud of and like to brag about at every opportunity ), a huge story about, guess what, a warlock, and--you know what?  I'll just post it on these boards too.  Spread the enjoyment around and all that.

[/derail]

But I'm glad you liked it.


----------



## Verision (Jul 9, 2008)

*Rationalize away*



Eldritch_Lord said:


> I can still attempt a rationalization, if you want. I've got a pretty good idea what it would be already; I just need to flesh it out and structure it as a logical proof and we'll be set.




I would be quite interested to hear it, especially after reading (some) of that warlock thread you mentioned (you seem to have a ...flare for words)



Eldritch_Lord said:


> Thanks. The color-coded "theater directions" format follows that of my very popular Warlock Fluff thread on the Wizards boards (which I'm quite proud of and like to brag about at every opportunity ), a huge story about, guess what, a warlock, and--you know what? I'll just post it on these boards too. Spread the enjoyment around and all that.
> 
> [/derail]
> 
> But I'm glad you liked it.




At least you're not modest about it.
[derail] I would use a smiley here to show you I'm joking, except for one small problem: I Fing *HATE* smileys. I don't know where my irrational hatred of all things smiley started; maybe it was that annoying ad that some websites have; maybe its just the idea of ascii faces; maybe it's just the fact that your emoticons are no match for my deceptacons. I'm not sure. But I do know that I have an irrational hatred for them; them and anyone that says "Dawg" and actually means it.....[/derail]


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 9, 2008)

Verision said:


> I would be quite interested to hear it, especially after reading (some) of that warlock thread you mentioned (you seem to have a ...flare for words)




When I get home from work and have time to compose it, I'll put it up here.

And I'm surprised that so many people find my writing so amazingly uberly (etc. etc. etc.) awesome; the warlock thing is the longest writing I've done that hasn't been for school (well, in PDF form it's 114 pages, so it's the longest thing _including_ school stuff), and I'm more of a compscie/math/physics guy than a writer.

ANYWAY.  I'm derailing, you're derailing, let's let the OP come back and have his say.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 10, 2008)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> ANYWAY.  I'm derailing, you're derailing, let's let the OP come back and have his say.




Already had my say, per say.  I still think the argument could go either way, its totally up to interpretation and flavor.

On one hand, no the minotaur does not have a "* Gore*" attack. So I see the argument you make that the "minotaur doesn't have a gore attack."

However, where I think you are wrong in that assumption, is that they DO have a "* Goring Charge At-Will*" which does damage that is not based on its weapon and implies that it is a gore (thus using its horns).  This is the ability that is ported over to the Player stats as an Encounter Power. One way or the other, it IS a Gore attack and it is a Staple (At-Will) attack for the minotaur in the MM.

This is why I agreed to remove the Gore Racial Trait, but add the option as feats. In my interpretation, they do have horns that they can use as an attack, and they get this by default in the form of their *Goring Charge* racial power. However, for flavor, fluff - whatever you want to call it, I do think that they should get the option for their horns to matter more - thus the feats.


----------



## redrover (Jul 11, 2008)

*All:* Great exchanges. 

*Self:* I promise to keep things shorter in future.

*Verision: *You are doing great on the gore discussion. You have points, you put them well, and Khaalis said everything I would have vis your comments to me. Above and beyond the call, dude.

*Notes to Khaalis:* I have more on your original feats (next post priority), some on your comments to me. This post priority is some errata on my Epic feat suggestions, so I’ll close there.

*Epic Feat Errata:* 
  On second look, most attribute requirements were way low. (Sorry, E-Feats were done last, at an hour no mortal should be up; text is wordy and ragged.) As in “New Math”,  “the idea is the important thing”. Text cleanup comes later.

*Epic Direction Sense:* Busted to *Heroic*.
  Extended comments next time. Summary: Your Heroic version fails to capture the essential minotaur--it’s a compass when it should be a GPS.

  Typo: “an directional” => “a directional”

*Direction Sense*
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur. *Perception 5.*
  Better than my first thought, IMO. A no-Perception-bonus minotaur is in at 10th via level advance. Hit the racial default with this. Sweet.

*Implacable Nemesis: *It looks like a power, but IMO the Divinity power feats in the PH are ample precedent. Your mileage may vary.

*Mind Surge*
*Prerequisites:* Minotaur, *Iron Will or Battle Courage*
Old attribute preqs. were clunky, since other Epic feat minimums are 17, and Wis/Con are not your minotaur core racial attributes. Change to Will Defense feats.

*Superior Senses: *Wording needs improvement, but I’m currently happy with the concept. Typo:  announced => announces

 *Third Wind*
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur. *Constitution 17
*
*Sundering Strike*
*Prerequisite:* *Strength 21,*  Axe Mastery, two-handed axe or hammer.​ 
    That’s it for now.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 11, 2008)

2 new versions uploaded. 
* Modified layout.

Short version - 2 page PHB style writeup plus Racial Feats and a Paragon Path.

Full version includes the Homebrew Ecology.


----------



## redrover (Jul 12, 2008)

*Initial reactions on New Text:* Looks really good! Like the Ecology and Cultural stuff a lot.

*Gore Proficiency #2:* Should be Gore Focus.

*((Minor editing, examples from Physiology text:* 
  *“and bestial to” sounds like it describes a behavior—maybe “and appear bestial to”
  * you might check a dictionary on “anthropomorphic”
  * “however,” => “, however,”
  * “able of” is a bit awkward
  * “a humans” => “a human”
  * “connection…connection” is a bit repetitive
  * general check—the plural of minotaur  is “minotaurs” (at least in 4e)  ))

  SPECIFIC FEATS

*On Mighty Swing:  *In my first post, I meant to offer _no_ comment on the balance or lack of balance for Mighty Swing itself. My only point was that if rebalancing _was_ necessary, then raising minimum attributes would be a dubious technique to achieve that goal. 

  I will comment on balance now. To my eye, the combat detail looks OK on paper and seems in line with other powers. Allowing for the +2 racial Strength bonus, the feat attribute requisite of 17 is in line with other feats. The only thing left on this one is actual playtesting, IMO.

*On Ferocity:* On comparing our campaign (which has no PC minotaurs) against this feat, I wonder whether this feat pulls its weight. Our fairly new group, six with two fighters, has had maybe a 9-10 significant combats so far, enough to hit 2nd level. Only one fighter has dropped – and only one time – in those fights. In our local play, if we had a minotaur, this feat would be used less often than the critical hit rules (the fighters have racked up three or four of those).

  I really like the way this feat tracks on the “book” racial traits. But is it really worth 1/18th of the character’s feat potential, considering the other feats out there? Would anyone take a feat with such a low payoff rate?

  I don’t know. Maybe this should go back to being a racial feat, and the player feat (Extreme Ferocity?) would be the same except it would be triggered by being bloodied? In our group, that one would have been triggered in almost every fight.


*On Battle Courage: *As I recall, the trait of fearlessness is consistently supported, not only in game material, but also in novels that deal with minotaur cultures. It’s been a while since I’ve read those works, but that’s what I remember of them. I agree with you that fearlessness seems to be a trained trait _for humans._

  I am reluctant to assume the same holds true for _minotaurs_ without rechecking what source material is available_. _

  If there was an attribute for bravery, and humans came in at 10, I would probably peg the minotaurs about 14-15.

*On Direction Sense: *On further reflection, after my last post, I think my critique of this feat is that, as it is currently written, there is just not enough crunch to allow consistent DM rulings. Take the following examples: Should the DM allow the feat to apply to these?

  1. I want to know which way is north.
  2. I have been teleported 500 miles. I want to go home.
3. I have been teleported to another plane. I want to go home.

  4. I want to know where in the woods my enemy has fled.
  5. I want to know where in the city my enemy has fled. (Does your answer change if the city is exceptionally maze-like?)
  6. I want to get through this hedge maze in the quickest time.
  7. I want to get through this dungeon maze in the quickest time.
  8. I want to get through this magical force-wall maze in the quickest time.
  9. The tunnel has collapsed behind me, which way is out? (Does your answer change if the framing is “I want to go home” as per #2?)

  I think it would be hard to get five DMs to rule the same way on these questions with the feat written as it is now. A hard-line DM might allow only #1, while even the most generous judge might balk at #3 or #5.

  The traditional essence of the minotaur’s innate direction sense is comprised of at least the following elements*: 

  1. You are never lost. 
  2. You can navigate any labyrinth with ease.
  3. You are immune to _maze _spells 

  In addition, some sources make them very good at tracking.

  (*Note: I can dig out specific examples of these traditions if you think it would be useful.)

*On Minotaur Size*: Ah! I hear you. I remember a similar incident with very skinny ogres some years ago. OK.

*On Goring Charge bonus: *OK, I figured this was a judgment call one way or the other. I guess the only question I have left here is do you know if WotC calls it this way when _they_ do bonuses?

*Next time:* I will return to some ideas from my first post.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 14, 2008)

Thanks for the comments and editing. Its great to have new eyes look things over since it all blurs to me after staring at it all so long.

*Corrections:*
* “Gore Proficiency #2” to “Gore Focus”.
* Some grammar and clarifications in descriptive ecology text.

Quotes: “redrover”


> *On Ferocity:*



I specifically removed this as a racial trait for exactly the reasons you list. It is something that is highly unlikely to come into play in game for a PC. This is really almost specifically monster trait. I included it as a racial feat, more for completeness, allowing a PC minotaur to choose to be more like their bestial kin if they so chose, rather than completely separating the ability and saying that no PC minotaur could ever have this. As for making an improved version at bloodied, I’m not sure how balanced that is since in 100% of the combats I’ve seen so far, the melee classes always hit bloodied in every combat, which means the minotaur would always get at least one free attack per encounter.



> *On Battle Courage:*



The problem here is that the D&D minotaur doesn’t get the fearless traits. I did, however, want to include it based on ‘other’ minotaur ecology as you mention. However, I wanted to keep it within the guideline of what other races get in the way of bonuses to saving throws against a specific effect, which is the +5.



> *On Direction Sense:*



Part of the problem here is that the PHB itself doesn’t go into mechanics for finding direction. All it says is that it falls under “Nature Knowledge”.
_*” Examples of Nature knowledge include determining cardinal directions or finding a path (common).”*_

So in this case, the feat applies to _*”determining cardinal directions or finding a path (common).”*_. The PHB purposely leaves this to gbe 90% Dm adjudication rather than a hard set of mechanical rules.

In your examples, this feat only applies to Nature Knowledge, which in turn only really applies to #1.

From your summary of examples:


> 2. I have been teleported 500 miles. I want to go home.



If you have no idea what direction you teleported, direction sense isn’t going to help you. You first need to find out where you are in relation to home. Once you manage that, and know “home” lies in X direction, you can use your direction sense to keep going in a path in that direction.



> 3. I have been teleported to another plane. I want to go home.



Again, direction sense not going to help you here. Your direction sense isn’t a homing device. It simply helps you determine the cardinal directions, which may not even work on another plane since the cardinal directions may not even exist.



> 4. I want to know where in the woods my enemy has fled.
> 5. I want to know where in the city my enemy has fled. (Does your answer change if the city is exceptionally maze-like?)



Direction sense isn’t a scrying spell nor a psychic sense. It is also not “scent”.



> 6. I want to get through this hedge maze in the quickest time.
> 7. I want to get through this dungeon maze in the quickest time.
> 8. I want to get through this magical force-wall maze in the quickest time.



Again, no help. You can orient yourself and know what the cardinal directions are, but its not a scrying spell. It will probably help you navigate a maze easier if the maze is a skill challenge since I would rule that your sense of direction allows you to know when you are doubling back and you can better keep track of what direction you are moving in. If anything I’d allow this to either grant a bonus to a “maze” skill challenge roll or give you the option to use nature knowledge as a useful skill for the challenge.



> 9. The tunnel has collapsed behind me, which way is out? (Does your answer change if the framing is “I want to go home” as per #2?)



Again, it’s not a homing device. You don’t know where “home” or “out” are.  In this scenario you don’t have a clue. The cave fell in behind you. What direction you have already headed no longer applies since you can’t trace your steps back. All you would know is what direction you were headed in currently.



> The traditional essence of the minotaur’s innate direction sense is comprised of at least the following elements*:
> 
> 1. You are never lost.
> 2. You can navigate any labyrinth with ease.
> ...



#1 Is where the bonus to nature checks to determine direction comes from.
The problem here, as I see it, is that 4E doesn’t really have hard mechanics for any of this. Making them, also makes the minotaur too powerful. I had at one time had immunity to _maze_ but it was felt to be worthless since there is only 1 player spell with this effect.  Along the same lines, I think #2 is too powerful to allow a PC, not to mention it is more akin to a scrying ritual than a racial power.



> *On Goring Charge bonus:* OK, I figured this was a judgment call one way or the other. I guess the only question I have left here is do you know if WotC calls it this way when they do bonuses?



Not quite sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?


----------



## redrover (Jul 14, 2008)

*Giant's Throw and Tipping*

Short break in the action.

Had some thoughts about what I'd like to do if I played a minotaur, and finished with a couple feat ideas:

*Giant’s Throw (Paragon)*
*Prerequisites: *Minotaur, Str 17, Dex 15.
*Effect:* You are a specialized hurler. If you use a movement action to take a steady stance, you can use a standard action to hurl your missile. Your usual missile is a small boulder (range 10/20, 2d8, prof +2), which you throw with both hands. This represents a boulder of about 1 cubic foot, weighing 160 pounds.* 

  When you grab an opponent of human size or smaller with both hands, you can hurl them as if they were boulders (set and throw, but no proficiency bonus, as they are considered improvised missiles). Medium creatures can be hurled up to 5 squares, and Small creatures can be hurled up to 10 squares. Being hurled is an instantaneous forced move that does not trigger an opportunity attack against the hurled creature. 

  Hurled creatures land in the target square and suffer the equivalent of a 20-foot fall (and may use any relevant ability to escape damage, landing prone, and other effects). Flying creatures end in the target square, but suffer no fall and may choose to remain airborne. Hurled creatures deal damage to those they strike: Medium 1d8 + your Str bonus, Small 1d6 + your Str bonus.
*Note:* The DM may allow other bulky monstrous humanoids to take this feat as well, such as half-ogres, ogres, half-giants, ettins (two-headed orc/giant half-breeds), large stocky troll-kin, giant apes, yeti, and others.

  *(_for the geeks:_ 1 cu. ft. sandstone = 145 lb., marble = 160 lb., limestone = 163 lb., granite = 168 lb.)

*Note: *I wanted to get it all down in one place first. However, once you remove the more general combat rules from the feat, it compresses to:

  “*Effect:* You gain weapon proficiency with hurled boulders (range 10/20, 2d8, prof +2), which you throw with both hands. 
*Special:* If you grab an opponent of human size or less, you can hurl them the same way, as an improvised missile (ranges 10 Small and 5 Large, respectively).  Hurled creatures damage those they strike: Medium 1d8 + your Str bonus, Small 1d6 + your Str bonus.”


*Tipping (Paragon)*
*Prerequisites: *Minotaur, Str 19, Athletics, Weapon Focus (Unarmed). 
*Effect:* You are a strong wrestler, skilled in bringing down creatures larger than yourself. At the beginning of any encounter, you may swap in the Tipping feat exploit to replace one of your At-Will powers. This exploit is especially effective against mounted opponents.

*Tipping*                                                                        Feat Exploit
*At-Will + Martial       *
*Standard         Melee *Grab
*Trigger:* With both hands free, you successfully grab a vehicle or a Large creature and use a move action to set a steady stance.
*Effect:* You can tip a vehicle or Large creature as a standard action. 

You gain a +2 feat bonus when you tip a stationary vehicle (an Athletics skill check). 

When you tip a Large opponent, the opponent must make a successful saving throw or be knocked prone (this save has a penalty equal to your Strength bonus). An opponent you knock prone takes 1d6 +2 + your Str bonus damage. If you tip a rider’s mount, the rider is dismounted. Creatures that are swimming or flying cannot be tipped.
*Special: *At Epic level you can tip Huge opponents. Huge opponents add their Strength bonus to their saving throws.
*Normal: *For tipping vehicles, see table. 
*Note:* The DM may allow other bulky, monstrous humanoids to take this feat, such as half-ogres, ogres, half-giants, ettins (the giant/orc halfbreed), large stocky troll-kin, giant apes, yeti, and others.


```
[B] Vehicle                          Tipping DC[/B]
  Chariot or ox-cart                 20
  Small wagon or coach               25
  Large wagon                        30
```
(Sometimes, the cows tip back…)

  (Quick, hide the elephants!)


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 14, 2008)

I really like Giant's Throw but for me, it doesn't fit the minotaur. It does however fit the risi, so I am likely going to snag this for them.

Tipping, I'm no so sure about. I'm not keen on the mechanic of swapping an at-will ability as a per encounter choice. The only mechanic even similar is the wizard getting to select which Daily to have access to each day. I'm also not sure on the mechanics. Its sort of an attack, but not really an attack.

I also believe it should be "Melee 1" rather than "Melee Grab".  I'll have to think on this one a bit.


----------



## redrover (Jul 14, 2008)

*On Ferocity:* I guess we differ on this one then. I would have left it as a racial trait for consistency with the MM write-up, in full knowledge that it would rarely impact the game. Balance-wise it’s insignificant. In play, it’s notable and exciting on the rare occasions it has some effect, so why not? It’s flavor.

However, I highly recommend removing Ferocity as a feat as it currently reads.
*
Idea:* .How about tying this to the second wind. That is, the minotaur gets the free blow instead of the defensive bonuses. Example: 


*Extreme Ferocity:* When you take      your second wind, you can make a free melee attack against an opponent      within reach. You do not receive the usual defensive bonuses for taking a      second wind.
   (That would put a cap on things mechanically, as it would only happen once per encounter unless some other special was in play.)
  Conceptually, it replaces a defensive “pull back and regroup” effect with an offensive “adrenaline rush surge” effect. Might be a little closer to minotaur fighting style…
*
On Battle Courage:* Great point. Good call.
*
On Direction Sense:* Points well taken.
  I have since gone back to some of the “civilized” minotaur material (principally DL Taladas) and found that your take on the civilized minotaurs is a lot closer than my memory of that material.

  The classic minotaur direction trait, put into 3E terms, might have been conceptually defined as a _find the path_ effect of infinite range and duration, but without the ability to walk the subject through specific actions and past traps the way the spell did.

  We can always assume that this GPS ability was lost in the transition from the primitive to civilized state. (I don’t think the GPS is too powerful to give to players, but I do think it is too powerful to give to Heroic Tier characters.)

  There have been direction-sensing abilities around for player characters ever since _Tunnels & Trolls_ had a “Bump-of-Direction”, 

  At this point, the Direction Sense feat as written should not be confined exclusively to minotaurs, IMO. Any number of races or classes might have this feat in this form. From that standpoint, I would jack the Wisdom requirement to 15, and then give the minotaurs a special racial trait along these lines:



*Natural Cunning, Preq. (Minotaur), (H):*      You gain a +2 racial bonus to Nature and Perception skill checks.
    This gives leaves civilized minotaurs about where they were with respect to  Direction Sense without making it too cheap for other races in general.

*Re: Question List*. Your response here clarifies that we are now talking apples and oranges. You are talking about a direction-sensing power that any fantasy hero might have. I’m talking about a power that is specific and exclusive to minotaurs. (_Aside:_ I agree with you on Q4-5, which I included because minotaur keen senses and tracking are part of the traditional minotaur “package”, and some of this still appears in MM text as flavor.) 

*Maze Powers:* This is so thematic for a minotaur that I am reluctant to let it go without at least one more suggested configuration:

*Maze Intuition (Paragon)*
*Prerequisites: *Minotaur, trained Perception. 
*Effect:* You are immune to _maze_ powers. Further, you can easily penetrate to the heart of a maze or labyrinth, or find its exit. When you are seeking one of these and stand at an intersection in a maze, using a minor action reveals the quickest way to your goal. 
*Special:* Once you have walked a path in a maze or labyrinth, you can faultlessly retrace your steps. 

  (The special is simple to run. Ask the minotaur player the place in the maze he wants to return to, calculate the time/distance on the map. Barring complications, he gets there. Done.)

  (IMO this feat could be pegged at either Heroic or Paragon Tier. Instant gratification reinforces the racial identity, but putting it off makes it a milestone achievement, which is also good. I prefer it as a full adult power, so have pegged it higher.)

*On Goring Charge bonus:* Clarifying not easy, too little sleep. Let’s just leave it at this: When I am give damage numbers, I will give basic numbers and expect the reader to add in other applicable modifiers. (That is, I’ll adopt your approach.)




*Idea, Battle Lust*
*Prerequisite: *Minotaur, Strength      17
*Effect:* When you bloody an      opponent, you can take your second wind as a free action.
*Special:* You cannot use Battle      Lust and Extreme Ferocity in the same round.
   (For simplicity, the special might be dropped. The unorthodox tactic of blowing a second wind just to get a free shot that this configuration allows is interesting. The key question is, is it unbalancing? I think it’s close enough that playtesting is needed to resolve the issue.)

*The "I was going to save these, but what the heck," dept.:*

*On Bull-Headed: *Sure. As a consistency thing, penalties should be minimized. If this was a feat, the Diplomacy penalty should definitely go to -2. The bonuses, being racial, would stack with feat bonuses, and that is intentional and important.

*Dimwitted:* It _looks_ painful (actually it is REALLY painful.)  Nothing says it can’t be softened, though. To make it squishy: 

  1. Allow a maximum of only one (or two) trained intelligence-based skills from class selection if they are available. Other intelligence-based skills can be trained with the feat Skill Training.

  2. Dump the Intuition penalty.

  Presto! A rubber mallet instead of a sledgehammer!  (*doink*)

  Actually, this might be feat material, too, if it was the first part of, say:



*Dimwitted Brute (Minotaur)(Heroic)*
   Along with, say, +1 hit point per level and Toughness, for example. The downside is that this would be an “only starting character” feat, and I don’t remember seeing too many of those in 4e, yet.

  (The “+1/level hit point bonus” is very close to a +2 Con bonus, balance-wise; though you don’t get the Defense bonus, extra healing surge, or Endurance skill bump.)

*Racial Trait Senses: *Another way to come at the traditional keen senses of a minotaur is with a racial trait.



*Keen Senses:* When you choose a      class, you can choose Perception as if it was a class skill.
    This ensures that minotaur characters always have access to good perception if they want it. If they take a class that doesn’t support Perception that well, they can go with the race trait at the cost of being a little behind the curve in class skills. This trait does not alter the number of class skills chosen, which makes it balance-neutral in that respect.

*Weapon Proficiencies: *Consider swapping in “Flail” for “Greataxe.”


There      is significant pre-4e support for the fail as a racial weapon.
4e      flails tend to be under-utilized as a weapon choice. (How many PCs have _you_ seen actually take one?
The      MM specifically gives a greataxe to the savage minotaur, so this would      distance the civilized minotaur from that archetype.
 
*Savage Minotaur: *Want to ditch this archetype fast and easy? Change your page title to “Minotaur, Civilized” and you’re done.

  And speaking of done…Ta, ta, for now!


----------



## pukunui (Jul 15, 2008)

Hi Khaalis,

As we discussed in my thread, I like a lot of what you've done but not everything. I'm keeping the minotaur's stats at +2 Str / +2 Con (and I'm giving them a +1 Will defense like the eladrin and warforged). I want to de-emphasize the savage aspects of the race, so I'm going to make Ferocity a racial feat like you have, but I want to put greater emphasis on their physical toughness, so I'm giving them a +2 bonus to Endurance instead of Perception (but I'm leaving Nature there, since they're an outdoorsy, nomadic people). I'm also going to give them battleaxe/greataxe proficiency. I'm also keeping the oversized weapons thing.


I just had a question about the Strong Mind feat. You've got that it grants +5 to saving throws against powers that deal psychic damage. _Are_ there any powers that deal psychic damage that allow for saving throws? If not, then there's not much point to this feat. I was thinking of doing a +5 vs charm, even though that causes the minotaur to step on the eladrin's toes even more.

Thoughts?


----------



## redrover (Jul 15, 2008)

*“New” Old Business*

*Giant’s Throw, Risi: *Haven’t been there yet. As long as the critter is a monstrous humanoid, tops 7 feet or so, and has a torso on steroids and arms to match, it’s probably a decent fit. If the critter is giant-related, it’s an even better fit. While you are free to adapt to your home campaign, I would prefer this not be presented elsewhere as a one-race feat.

*Tipping: *To sort this one out, pretend the vehicle stuff doesn’t exist. That is a pure extension of the basic idea, more than a little Hulk-Hollywood, and it’s there to give the feat something to do if there’s not much cavalry in the campaign.

  There was a slew of 3e feats that could be lumped together under the heading “Combat Stunts”. This feat comes from that tradition.

  The key aspect of the feat is the anti-cavalry capability. It’s like the minotaur making _himself _an “oversized weapon”. Strategically, you swap it in if you expect cavalry in an encounter; it’s not all that useful otherwise.


*On Design Theory:* Just a few words on the philosophy of design before moving on (or back) to “Old” old business.

  First, I think that to reject new game mechanic ideas simply because “it’s never been done that way before” ultimately stifles creativity. I don’t see how “it’s never been done” can be a useful criticism. (Challenging a direct contradiction of an established procedure _is_ useful criticism, but I don’t see that being the case here.)

  Second, in a superior game, pllay effect trumps design guidelines. For example, in 1e AD&D, the “design rule” for spells was that a spell's casting time was based on its spell level. Yet, we had the _featherfall _spell, which took no time to cast, thus “breaking” the rule. The ability to avoid going splat couldn’t function under the general rule, so the rule went away for one spell. Function trumps form = good design where the concept warrants.. 

  A clear negative example of form trumping function exists. You can see what the “form” decision to set each spell at one and only one spell level and lock spells into one unique school/sphere did to the druid class between the 1e and 2e AD&D PH books. It wasn’t pretty.

  Third, design “system” consistency as a concept is most useful in the early release stages of a design. It gets designers on the same page and brings everyone up to a basic consistency threshold when writing new rules. After all, you have to have good fundamentals. Once you have them, you can start breaking rules, and the best designers know how and when to break them. The rest of us, absent actual design documentation from WotC, have to muddle along with what we can glean and what we have learned, (especially when we don’t actually have a sheet of “cardinal rules” to look at).

*“Old” Old Business*
  So let’s return to a design analysis of the *Horn Slash* feat. What does this configuration actually _do?_



> *Horn Slash*
> *Prerequisite:* Minotaur.
> *Benefit:* You can use a move action to slash with your horns as a primary attack. You gore an adjacent opponent for 1d6 + 2 + Strength modifier damage.



  First, it forces a _choice._ By converting a move action into an attack action, we create the following cases:

  1. A moving Minotaur may attack with his weapon, or
  2. A moving Minotaur may attack with his horns (as an offhand weapon), or
  3. A stationary Minotaur may attack with his weapon and horns (re feat).

  The tactical problem for the minotaur is he can’t get his best attack combination until he closes, but the best attack combination hinders him from closing.

  However, the _capability_ for a powerful melee combination forces a choice on the opponent as well.

  1. Stay in close and risk getting hit twice, or
  2. Keep moving tactically and give up some attack opportunities.

  Decision points, tactical interplay, the possibility of great success are the hallmark of good tactical game rules.

  It is true that multiple attacks tend to break the game system and should always be looked at with suspicion. That’s been in D&D history ever since the 1.5e AD&D _Unearthed Arcana_ book gave fighters multiple blows per round. In 4e, it looks like the design team has been fairly draconian in enforcing a “one attack per creature per round” standard.

  So the “old style” (since 1.5e, anyway) practice of adding additional attacks per round as a power upgrade is not going to find much traction in 4e design circles. So the feat as configured isn’t going to fly.

  The concept of “stop-to-unload-a-bigger-hit” may not be usable here.

*Tweak Concept 1, the Trigger:*
  Require the Horn Slash to be triggered by a successful weapon strike. This operates in the tradition of the old monster “rake” and “hug” special attacks. It is basically much like a critical hit: increased damage for a low percentage of actual combat hits. It varies mainly in degree/magnitude of damage dealt. Throw in an additional special condition (in this case “combat advantage”) and we have a revised version:

*Horn Slash (Heroic)*
*Prerequisite:* Minotaur.
*Benefit:* You have trained to use your horns more effectively in close combat. If you get a melee hit on an opponent against whom you have combat advantage, you deal +2 additional points of gore damage.
*Special*: At 11th level you deal +4 points of gore damage, at 21st level you deal +6 points of gore damage.

  (The damage breakdown is +2 damage (horn proficiency), times the Tier.)

*Side Note: Gore Proficiency and Gore Focus Feats*
  Both descriptions ignore the possibility that the minotaur can make other types of unarmed attacks (such as a fist, kick, grab). Maybe gore should specify a horn attack.

*To Investigate:* Has WotC assigned a default proficiency of +1 to “natural” attacks in the MM? Minotaur suggests so…are there others? (Must check…)

*Tweak Concept 2, the Attack Penalty:*
  As an offhand/secondary/etc. attack, should we apply an attack penalty as a balancer? Over 20 years of play suggest that simple attack penalties alone can’t compensate for the damage increase dealt by a second attack. Specifically, a simple penalty that is balanced at low level breaks at high level. So by itself, a simple attack penalty won’t solve the problem, and maybe should not even be considered as a useful balancing tool anymore. Simple, accurate, balanced – we can have any two, it seems.

*Tweak Concept 3, the Stunt:*
  In 3e, a common source of feats was the “stunt” combat move. I am not certain to what degree 4e embraces or rejects this approach to feats, but I think the fan creative urge to write stunt-feats makes rejection of this approach (as a “cardinal rule” of 4e design?) a somewhat risky decision at best (and I've seen no evidence yet that WotC has rejected the approach). I’m still looking the rules over on this one (*makes gleaning noises*).

  Are there other tweaks? Undoubtedly. And that’s what forums are for.
  It is in the exploration of options, and not in a brief “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” reaction that forums are at their most effective.

*Rampaging Bull:* This is another feat idea driven by concept. It puts the minotaur in “no heal self” mode as long as he decides to keep his attack bonuses. The player must make a critical calculation about how far he can go without getting clobbered. As the party starts to realize how this feat works, the healers (hopefully) should start feeding the minotaur support heals as he pushes forward. The feat concept specifically rewards party teamwork and aggressive play. (Would changing the name to remove the berserker image make a difference?)

_Side Note:_ Want a rage/berserking ability? A core mechanic is in the MM Human berserker description (p163). I expect this to turn up in an official barbarian write-up. Maybe not exactly, but consistent in broad form.

_“When you hit an enemy with your Gore weapon, an enemy adjacent to you takes damage equal to your STR modifier.”_

  I don’t understand where this comment is going. Do you mean if you hit someone with a gore (say as an offhand weapon attack), someone _else_ takes damage as well? From what? The wording here seems a little vague. 

That said, this is a static bonus that doesn’t seem to scale well. It may be overpowered at low levels, where a Str 20 deals 14% of a Kobold's (Dragonshield) hit points (36) on one hit, but it fades at 25th, where a Str 27 (max Str push) deals just a little more than 03% of a Swordwing’s hit points (234). Perhaps more refinement of this configuration may be in order. 

(A complete analysis would look at attack chances as well, maybe work out the average damage points per round, and so forth, but it's late. Maybe later.)​ 
*Relentless Pursuit: *The concept for this feat has the minotaur closing with the enemy in _their _turn. Its 4e function is specific: It facilitates penetration to the opposing strikers and controllers – and to a certain extent counters the ability of enemy Leaders to shift vulnerable allies out of harm’s way. 

  The other intended tactical twidge is that a party with push powers that move the enemy can, by so doing, advance their minotaur ally. Leveraged combinations appear core in 4e. The flipside is that this feat makes it easier for the minotaur to advance too far and end up as hamburger. Estimation, judgment, decision – elements of a good tactical game.

  In this particular case, I’m not sure how the feat draft currently integrates with the Epic Tier powers of other classes, I haven’t been able to spend as much time with the Epic sections as I would like. I’m not certain this might not be better configured as a power. But good design is mutable. Let’s see where it goes.

  That’s it for now.

*Hold the Presses! Dept.*
  Note on the *natural cunning* idea: Stupid writer (moi) didn’t review Racial Traits (Skills) in your draft again before posting. My comment unnecessary and distracting. 

    (It does spark a thought that maybe an Athletics/Nature skill divide might spin off an alternative minotaur configuration – perhaps that Fey minotaur variant...)

  Also, in several sections (notably “Re: Question List”) I used the word “power” when I should have used “feat”. Sorry about any confusion this caused.

  Done…really.


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 15, 2008)

I've got to comment on this but mighty Blow is so good no two handed weapon fighter would not take it combine it with a polearm as well as polearm gamble and throw Heavy Blade oppurtunity on top you get

Push 1 square away you can now threaten that guy with polearm gamble if he approaches again and guess what when you attack him with the oppurtunity attack he gets pushed back again, I think this is the main reason tide of iron requires a shield, no reach and push at will abilities

Suggestion from myself just don't include it as is


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 15, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> Are there any powers that deal psychic damage that allow for saving throws? If not, then there's not much point to this feat. I was thinking of doing a +5 vs charm, even though that causes the minotaur to step on the eladrin's toes even more.



It’s not incredibly common now that I really dig through the books looking.

PHB
•	*’Crown of Madness’* is both a psychic and charm “(save ends)” power.
•	*’Whispers of the Fey’* is a psychic “(save ends)” power.
•	*’Legion’s Hold’* is a both a psychic and  charm “(save ends)” power.
•	*’Destructive Salutation’* is a psychic “(save ends)” power.
MM
•	Aboleth, Berbalang, Colossus, Green Dragon, Foulspawn, Ghost, Gibbering Beast, Githzerai, Grell, Night Hag, Homunculus, Lamia, Marut, Medusa, Mind Flayer, Naga, Deathpriest Hierophant, Rakshasa, Tiefling, Umber Hulk, Wraith, Yuan-ti, 

I am sure there will be more once Psionics is released.   However, I am thinking this would probably be more beneficial as follows:

*Prerequisites:* Wis 15, Minotaur
*Benefit:* You gain a +1 racial bonus to your Will defense against attacks with the _Psychic_ or _Charm_ keyword.




			
				redrover said:
			
		

> I guess we differ on this one then. I would have left it as a racial trait for consistency with the MM write-up, in full knowledge that it would rarely impact the game. Balance-wise it’s insignificant. In play, it’s notable and exciting on the rare occasions it has some effect, so why not? It’s flavor.



The only problem I have with this is that the MM version is meant to be a playable version of the monstrous minotaur described in the MM, whereas I am trying to make a differentiation between a more “civilized” minotaur race and their more feral brethren that appear in the MM. This follows the same kind of pattern with how a player Dragonborn or Tiefling differ from their respective MM entries.

I do however like the idea of “Extreme Ferocity”.  I would write it up as follows, to avoid some confusion with the more feral version.

*FIERCE REPRISAL* – Heroic Feat
*Prerequisities:* Minotaur
*Benefit:* When you use your _second wind_ power, you can choose to make a single melee basic attack against a threatened enemy. You heal normally as per _second wind_, but you do not gain the normal defense bonus from using _second wind_.




			
				redrover said:
			
		

> On Direction Sense: Points well taken.
> I have since gone back to some of the “civilized” minotaur material (principally DL Taladas) and found that your take on the civilized minotaurs is a lot closer than my memory of that material.



I just managed to get a pdf copy of this source and will be reading over it as a I get the chance.  I remembered some vague information about DL minotaurs but not a lot. I used what little I remembered along with some of the WoW Tauren and some Klingon to come up with the current rendition. I’ll really have to go through this book and see if there is anything else useful I can pull.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> Maze Powers: This is so thematic for a minotaur that I am reluctant to let it go without at least one more suggested configuration:
> 
> *Maze Intuition (Paragon)
> Prerequisites:* Minotaur, trained Perception.
> ...



I can see this as a workable feat. However I would make the prerequisites:

*Prerequisites:* Wis 15, Minotaur, Trained in Perception, Direction Sense  (Paragon Tier)
_(possibly even add Natural Cunning or Skill focus)_??

This makes it more of a “feat stack” and makes it a bit harder to get this benefit (which for any real dungeon crawl campaign, this is a BIG benefit). I also agree it shouldn’t be achieved earlier than Paragon.

The other small issue I have is “What defines a maze or labyrinth?”

I think this needs to be more clarified and made to be more simple to adjudicate, such as “any dungeon environment”?



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Battle Lust
> Prerequisite:* Minotaur, Strength 17
> *Effect:* When you bloody an opponent, you can take your second wind as a free action.
> *Special:[/]b You cannot use Battle Lust and Extreme Ferocity in the same round.*



*
IMHO, I don’t think there is a need for the “Special” but I Would change from free action to Minor Action. This is more in line with the existing rules for second wind (i.e. the dwarf). However, I might push this to Paragon tier. I’m also not sure about the STR prerequisite. Why STR?




			Racial Reduction Feats
		
Click to expand...


I’m still not sure I am comfortable with feats that assign penalties. It goes against everything in the 4E design to date. Feats are meant to be bonuses, and the core design philosophy is give, not take (thus no Stat penalties). Also, as you stated I don’t think making a feat prerequisite “Can only be chosen at first level” as a real balancing factor as it seems to be something 4E has done away with. Feats should give smaller bonuses and take nothing away.




			
				redrover said:
			
		


			Racial Trait Senses: Another way to come at the traditional keen senses of a minotaur is with a racial trait.
•	Keen Senses: When you choose a class, you can choose Perception as if it was a class skill.
This ensures that minotaur characters always have access to good perception if they want it. If they take a class that doesn’t support Perception that well, they can go with the race trait at the cost of being a little behind the curve in class skills. This trait does not alter the number of class skills chosen, which makes it balance-neutral in that respect.
		
Click to expand...


Wouldn’t it just be easier to grant free Skill Training (Perception)?




			
				redrover said:
			
		


			Savage Minotaur: Want to ditch this archetype fast and easy? Change your page title to “Minotaur, Civilized” and you’re done.
		
Click to expand...


Yes, but it’s not clean. The precedent is already set for the same name as well. As I mentioned above, the Dragonborn example is the racial name even though the PHB race and MM entries are different.



			
				redrover said:
			
		


			Giant’s Throw, Risi: Haven’t been there yet. As long as the critter is a monstrous humanoid, tops 7 feet or so, and has a torso on steroids and arms to match, it’s probably a decent fit. If the critter is giant-related, it’s an even better fit. While you are free to adapt to your home campaign, I would prefer this not be presented elsewhere as a one-race feat.
		
Click to expand...


Aye. Risi are giant-kin.

I’ll comment on the rest later. Running out of response time for the moment.*


----------



## pukunui (Jul 15, 2008)

Khaalis said:


> I am sure there will be more once Psionics is released.



I agree.



> However, I am thinking this would probably be more beneficial as follows:
> 
> *Prerequisites:* Wis 15, Minotaur
> *Benefit:* You gain a +1 racial bonus to your Will defense against attacks with the _Psychic_ or _Charm_ keyword.



That looks better. Of course, I'm already giving minotaurs a flat +1 to Will defence but that's because I'm keeping the Str/Con bonuses and, if the eladrin and warforged are anything to go by, WotC's logic is that if a race gets bonuses to two stats that feed into the same defence, then they should get something to compensate.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 16, 2008)

ginnel said:
			
		

> I've got to comment on this but mighty Blow is so good no two handed weapon fighter would not take it combine it with a polearm as well as polearm gamble and throw Heavy Blade oppurtunity on top you get
> 
> Push 1 square away you can now threaten that guy with polearm gamble if he approaches again and guess what when you attack him with the oppurtunity attack he gets pushed back again, I think this is the main reason tide of iron requires a shield, no reach and push at will abilities
> 
> Suggestion from myself just don't include it as is



Part of the entire point of the feat was to give a race who took fighter to have a small racial advantage. The fighter only has 6 powers that push (at levels 1, 13, 3 at 17, 19). A minotaur fighter would gain a small advantage over other race’s fighters in that they could gain a “Push 1” on more uses.  However, so many people seem to think that it is too good. Thus here is the latest incarnation of the feat, greatly reducing its power. It keeps it to the flavor of the race’s preferred weapons and prevents the polearm combination.

*MIGHTY SWING* [Minotaur]
*Prerequisites:* Str 17, Minotaur (Heroic)
*Benefit:* When you hit with an attack when using a greataxe, you can push the target 1 square in addition to any damage you deal.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Horn Slash*
> By converting a move action into an attack action, we create the following cases:
> 1. A moving Minotaur may attack with his weapon, or
> 2. A moving Minotaur may attack with his horns (as an offhand weapon), or
> 3. A stationary Minotaur may attack with his weapon and horns (re feat).



This breaks one of the core design aspects of the combat round in that you can trade Down actions, but not Up, which is what you are granting (a move increased to a standard).  The type of action you are describing here is better IMHO, as a power since it is effectively the same as the Cleave power, but you are giving a Power-like attack as a feat, which also breaks the basic rules of feats vs. powers.

With that said, I do like the new variation of Horn Slash. It effectively allows them to use “gore” as an off-hand style attack but fitting into the economy of action rules, simply granting a bonus to damage.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Gore Proficiency & Focus*
> Both descriptions ignore the possibility that the minotaur can make other types of unarmed attacks (such as a fist, kick, grab). Maybe gore should specify a horn attack.



This was the only way to get the concept to work. The system does not take into account anywhere for different types of unarmed attacks. It is always assumed that the creature is making the best possible unarmed style of attack for the situation (it left to the player and DM to describe the action, whether it as a fist to the face, a round-house kick to the chest, a knee to the groin, a slashing claw or a gore). The system only cares that it’s an “unarmed” attack, not what appendage is being used.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> Natural Attack



It’s hard to tell what they assign as “proficiency” for natural attacks. I think it’s totally ambiguous when it comes to monsters. I don’t think they really grant anything in the way of ‘proficiency’ as a specific breakdown. I think ‘proficiency’ is taken into account in the attack formulas for Creature Role (such as Brute = +3, Skirmisher = +5, etc.)



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Raging Bull*



Not sure I’m keen on creating a feat that does the whole “no heal self” mode. This is more reminiscent of a Stance power.  However, I do like the idea of using the Human Berserker mechanic as a feat “Raging Bull”.

*RAGING BULL* [Minotaur]
*Prerequisites:* Str 17, Minotaur (Heroic)
*Benefit:* When you are first bloodied in an encounter you may make a free melee basic attack with a +4 bonus to the attack roll and deals an extra 1d6 damage on a hit.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Relentless Pursuit*



As you suggest, I think this Is too powerful for a feat, and should likely be looked at as a power. Perhaps a racial substitute utility power.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Natural Cunning*



I think I am going to take this idea and run with it as follows, to reflect those minotaur with the affinity to labyrinths.

*NATURAL CUNNING* [Minotaur]
*Prerequisites:* Wis 15, Minotaur (Heroic)
*Benefit:* You gain a +2 racial bonus to Dungeoneering and Perception skill checks.




			
				pukunui said:
			
		

> if the eladrin and warforged are anything to go by, WotC's logic is that if a race gets bonuses to two stats that feed into the same defence, then they should get something to compensate.



I wholeheartedly agree here. The basic design seems to be that you should get 2 defense bonuses. If you happen to only get 1 from your stat bonuses, then you should get another +1 as a feature.


----------



## redrover (Jul 16, 2008)

_Updates to 7/15/late night:_ 
*
On Ferocity:* Oh. Yes, of course. Losing Ferocity is definitely in line with civilized minotaurs. (*D’oh*). 

   (At this point I will repeat the request for the “Minotaur, Civilized” heading. _I_ need it to keep the types straight. Others might find it useful as well. My thought is always for conceptual clarity, and format, like form, should bow out to function—which it to keep a casual reader from mistakenly assuming that you’re detailing the savage minotaurs.)

*Fierce Reprisal: *Cool. Ready for testing, then?

*Taladas: *One base race write-up is in the _Tales of the Lance_ boxed set (Ansalon). Most of the _Time of the Dragon_ (Taladas) boxed set material is gazetteer-type world info, but interesting. I found the _Krynn Minotaur_ in _MC 4 Monstrous Compendium: Dragonlance Appendix_ a good summary of the basic/culture info. I’m still looking for a couple of the novels (they’re around here somewhere…really).

*Maze Intuition: *In general, I have no problem with this being part of a feat string (though I generally dislike strings longer than three or so). I would, however, peg your Direction Sense at Heroic level. It really has the effective power of that Tier as written, no higher, IMO.

  I would just as soon withdraw Natural Cunning as configured from the table. What it brings is covered by your Racial Trait skill bonuses. 

  Requiring Skill Focus (Perception) _in addition_ to training might be a little much for Paragon Tier. Perhaps it would be better to keep the Skill Focus something a minotaur might consider sometime at the Epic level. 

  A feat that requires the character to virtually maximize a skill just to access it stands outside my comfort zone. Fighting “power creep” requires vigilance, and this one trips a warning flag for me.

*Epic Tier Minotaur Sense: *If there is a string of sense feats, going from Heroic to Epic, it seems to me that the top of the string might well be the GPS ability. 

The phrase “…never lost” turns up in minotaur-related material consistently. While it would probably be a racial trait or Heroic feat for savage minotaurs, it seems reasonable to me that even a civilized minotaur at the upper Tier of character power _might_ manifest the ability, especially if it is something the player has to work on long-term.

  I don’t have a concrete configuration at this point, but this seems an interesting line of inquiry.

*Mazes Definition:* In a game design, metagame sense, I would characterize a maze/labyrinth as follows:



It      has to be a construction. In other words, some intelligent entity created      it.
The      _intent_ of the creator was to      create a maze.
 
  In brief:   intelligent design + intent -> labyrinth

  This second point keys off the old AD&D 2e discussions of “what is a trap”, the definition of which was always a little tricky when adjudicating the _find traps_ cleric spell. In that case, the intention of the trap-maker was a major element in the definition in order to exclude natural hazard conditions like a ravine subject to flash floods, etc.

  IMO defining a labyrinth as “any dungeon environment” is _far_ too broad.

*Battle** Lust:* Great. Kill the special (like it less every time I see it). Minor action is good, too. Double great.

_Why Strength: _It one of the two main racial attributes. It slants the feat heavily toward the Defenders/Leaders. The Fortitude defense is based on either Strength or Constitution, so Strength here is not completely out of line. I wanted to reinforce the impression that the cool race benefits flow from the main racial attributes.

_Why not Constitution?_ It is not a main racial attribute for this class build. It slants the feat heavily toward the Warlock class (Defenders/Leaders _not _supported).

  (As always, function over form. In the first AD&D proficiency system (1.5e), Riding was a Wisdom-based proficiency, because Wisdom ruled all animal-related class abilities and skills. The effect, of course, was that the best rider in game was the Cleric, not the Cavalier. Foolish consistency on the small points can make you miss the big points.) 

*On Penalties*: Fair enough. “No penalties” seems to be the order of the day in 4e. I repeat the opinion that throwing away half the palette limits our creativity. (I will admit to a strong role-playing streak and don’t mind eating a few penalties if it makes a more memorable character.)

  Someone said once that what makes a hero interesting is his weaknesses, not his strengths, and I do buy into that sentiment. 

 However, the vogue of the day is “don’t give players penalties, it might hurt their feelings”. Bah! Suck it up and learn to roleplay, wimps! 


 (And I’ll quietly put away half my broken palette until the audience gets sick of this vanilla pabulum and decides to go full-spectrum.) 


*“Beginning Only” Feats*: What drives a “beginning only” feat is not balance, but story consistency and world-sculpting. A feat becomes a “beginning only” feat when it doesn’t make sense for it to be developed by a character as part of an adventuring career. Another path is a feat that reinforces a regional origin for a character’s backstory.

  For example, the concept of the *dimwitted* feat is that you’re not very smart, you’ve never _been_ very smart, and that fact will impact your development as an adventurer in ways detailed by the feat. 

  It would rarely make much story sense to suddenly _become_ dimwitted at, say, 8th level or so. 

  While it’s true that an individual case can be worked out (eg: someone dropped a rock on your head), that can lead to other problems, both internal (qy: now I have the feat benefit, why can’t I just get a cleric to heal that head injury?) and structural (how many times can you use the old “rock hit you” story before it gets so old the players groan just thinking about it?). But these are story issues, not balance issues.

  A properly designed “beginning feat” should be balanced with respect to other feats. I agree with you that a “beginning only” configuration is no license or justification to create an unbalanced feat.

  Even though there are no such feats in the core rules, the concept of the “beginning only” feat is too useful not to resurface in future. 

  Mere line consistency should bring it back into the Forgotten Realms line at least. There, it was used to define a specific regional background—you can only come from _one_ place, and the regional characteristics can’t just appear in the middle of an adventuring career without looking illogical.

*Beginning Only vs. 1st Level Feats:* Last, one more matter can be sorted with respect to this type of feat. Many early examples were configured as “1st level only” feats. This designation breaks down with respect to the “beginning”-style feat once you have multiclass characters becoming “1st level” in a new class much later in their careers. 

  An example of a “1st level only” feat that is not a “beginning” feat is a hypothetical “latent psion” feat taken by a nonpsionic character as a prerequisite for a psionic class. 

  The two types are different and the distinction should be carried forward. 

*Free Perception Training:* Easier, yes; also more inflationary, I think.  
  From a rules consistency standpoint (ie: have other races been given a free skill?) its no better than Eladrin Training, so no red flag there. Probably worth testing if you want to try it.

*Late Note on Ferocity: *While previously I have said that Ferocity might not be that useful, I have seen comments elsewhere that indicate differing mileage. So here are a few data points:

  While the two Defenders in the local group haven’t gone down much, one squishy of four has been killed, all the others (including the replacement) have dropped at least once, and two have dropped multiple times.

  In 9-10 significant combats (Keep adventure), we have been surprised 5 times by enemies within charge range, flanked 6 times, and taken front-and-rear once.

  The attacks have seldom been well coordinated, and the party usually had solid tactics with flashes of inspired play, or things may have gone considerably worse for us. (We have an experienced group with a huge time investment in earlier editions.)

  We seem to do poorly on both passive and active Perception checks (even with an elf Ranger); but on the other hand, the other skill checks we’ve encountered so far seem disproportionately difficult for the first adventure in a game line.

  It is still very hard to tell which effects are from the adventure, which are from the DM, and which are systemic. Although the players don’t read modules before completion, I am really looking forward to the exercise this time.

  Oh, and the characters are heavily twinked. No magic other than scavenged, but attribute modifier bonus total for each is around +20, about 2.5 x book. (Not my choice, I just swim in this pool.)

  Later!

  (PS: Third attempt. Two previous accidentally flushed.)


----------



## pukunui (Jul 16, 2008)

Just in case anyone's curious ... after some discussion with the player of the minotaur fighter in my group, I've decided to leave the race write-up as it's written in the MM except that I'm giving a bonus +1 to Will defense (under the heading "Magic Resistant"). The main reason is that my player wants to try the minotaur as-is before I go about fiddling with it. Fair enough.

I'm leaving Ferocity in. I figure that while minotaurs in my world have learned to be "civilized" (although they tend to keep to themselves and live in semi-nomadic tribal groups), they still have some remnants of a less civilized past ... and when they're at death's door, that past surfaces in the form of the Ferocity racial feature.

On a side note, I'm really hoping that this minotaur PC survives all the way through _Keep on the Shadowfell_ ... partly because the player lost every single one of his PCs in my last 3.5 campaign (_Red Hand of Doom_) and because I'll be able to develop some of his character background more when we start playing _Thunderspire Labyrinth_ (he's already got it in his background that his character's father's lifelong search was to relocate the lost minotaur city under the Thunderspire).


----------



## redrover (Jul 17, 2008)

*On ‘old” Horn Slash:* Good points on system break. Sometimes it takes me awhile to inch up the learning curve, but things are getting sorted. The new feat is getting closer to 4e.

*Monster weapon proficiency:* Hmm…Thought I saw a loose +1 bonus in the MM minotaur write-up a couple days ago. Can’t find it now. It looks like the original find was just brain-fuzz. So weapon proficiency with respect to horns is a non-issue, which means Horn Slash tweaks a bit more:



*Horn      Slash (Heroic)*
*Prerequisites:* Minotaur, Gore Focus
*Benefit:* You have trained to use your horns more effectively in      close combat. If you get a melee hit on an opponent against whom you have      combat advantage, you deal +2 points of gore damage.
*Special*: At 11th level you deal +4      points of damage, at 21st level you deal +6 points of damage.
    The damage numbers work out as follows: The base numbers come from the "+x" bonuses on the DMG p185 Damage Table (using 5th, 15th, and 25th levels), minus the damage bonus for Gore Focus, with which this feat is cumulative. 

*Unarmed Attacks vis. Gore Proficiency/Gore Focus:* I’m missing your point here. The books don’t distinguish between types of unarmed attacks, it’s true, but sometimes the tactical situation will make certain types of attacks impossible: for example, a character caught in quicksand might punch, but couldn’t get off an effective kick; or a minotaur might have his horns lassoed but his legs free.

  I’m uncomfortable with the assumption that PCs will always use the most effective attack form with respect to unarmed combat. I consider PC freedom of choice paramount, and that includes the freedom to make a sub-optimal attack. In fact, I think I would prefer the opposite: That, all things being equal, the default choice _is_ sub-optimal – thus requiring player to take a positive action to get the optimal choice.

  Finally, as a literalist, I think using “Gore” creates a strong expectation that the attack is _specific_ to horns. If you want a generic unarmed combat bonus, it should just say “Unarmed Combat”.

  I’m just not getting exactly how specifying _horns_ (in a gore attack), somehow breaks the feat? 


*Raging Bull, re. Stance power: *All this time, and I _still _haven’t found a page that defines “Stance.” I’m guessing at what it kinda, sorta, _might_ be, but this is starting to drive me a little crazy. You wouldn’t happen to know a page reference, would you?

*Feat vs. Power: *One thing that has stopped me from looking more closely at new racial powers is that I’m not exactly sure how _advanced_ “monster PC” powers should be presented.

  All the core 4e powers seem to be class-based; all monster powers in the MM seem to be basic monster attacks or racial traits (though I haven’t been able to spend much time in this book, yet).

  The compromise I’ve been moving toward in this discussion has been “feat unlocks advanced racial power” combined with a swap-in, but I’d be a lot more comfortable if there were other precedents in the published material for this approach.

  I’d even be overjoyed to find a non-trait “book” avenue for advanced racial powers that I’ve missed, even though I’d feel a little stupid for not having found it yet.

*Natural Cunning: *Going with Dungeoneering seems inconsistent with the rest of the class build, since affinity for labyrinths seems to be a savage trait rather than a civilized one. The Maze Intuition feat takes care of exceptional civilized minotaurs crossing the civilized/savage divide.

  I like the racial +2 Perception bonus, but would suggest maybe:



*Hunter’s Heritage:* +2 Perception,      +2 on saving throws vs. fear.
    This supports above normal senses and above normal stubbornness, both of which I’ve always considered core minotaur racial traits.  

*Pukunui: *Really nice insight! 

  (*scribbles in “Little Black Book of Design” *)

  Do keep us posted. I am _really_ curious about how Ferocity actually plays out for a PC. We’re rooting for your minotaur PC here!

  Ta-ta!


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 17, 2008)

redrover said:
			
		

> Fierce Reprisal: Cool. Ready for testing, then?



I think its solid. Anyone playtesting can let us know. I don’t foresee any real problems.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> Taladas….



I don’t have that much Dragonlance material. I own the original hardbound Dragonlance book (somewhere in storage crates in the basement) as well as the new 3.5 original hardbound book. I am attempting to accumulate some of the old material on PDF but don’t have much currently. What I have is a mix of 2E and 3E: Taladas the Minotaurs, Dragon Magic, Atlas of Dragonlance, Bestiary of Krynn, Campaign Setting, Dragons of Krynn, Holy Order of the Stars. I’m searching for others to fill in on some useful material but DL was never a big inspiration for a campaign world to me. Great story material but not such a great place to adventure in.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> Mazes



Ok so what I have so far related to a minotaur’s maze/direction sense are:

*HEROIC TIER*
*DIRECTION SENSE* [Minotaur]
…..*Prerequisites:* Wis 15, Minotaur, Trained in Perception
…..*Benefit:* You have an innate sense of direction and automatically succeed on all Nature skill checks made to determine direction.

*NATURAL CUNNING* [Minotaur]
…..*Prerequisites:* Wis 15, Minotaur
…..*Benefit:* You gain a +2 racial bonus to Dungeoneering and Perception checks.

*PARAGON TIER*
*MAZE INTUITION* [Minotaur]
…..*Prerequisites:* Wis 15, Minotaur, trained Perception, Direction Sense. 
…..*Benefit:* You are immune to maze powers. Further, you can easily penetrate to the heart of a maze or labyrinth, or find its exit. When you are seeking one of these and stand at an intersection in a maze, using a minor action reveals the quickest way to your goal. 
…..*Special:* Once you have walked a path in a maze or labyrinth, you can faultlessly retrace your steps.
_Definition:_ A labyrinth is defined as any construction (whether , stone, etc.) meant to confuse those traversing the construction. Standard “dungeon” design does not carry this intent, though some do. This is left to the DM to adjudicate. 

*EPIC TIER*
Toying with a “never lost” option, though to date there is only 1 Epic Tier racial feats to use as a guideline (warforged).



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Battle Lust*



Ok, STR makes sense now.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> On Penalties: Fair enough. “No penalties” seems to be the order of the day in 4e. I repeat the opinion that throwing away half the palette limits our creativity. (I will admit to a strong role-playing streak and don’t mind eating a few penalties if it makes a more memorable character.) {Snip}



While on one hand I completely agree that penalties make for a richer mechanical development of the PC in question, it does go against everything set forth in the core precept of the 4E game design.  Do I necessarily agree? No not really.  Do I understand it? Yes. It’s meant to make the system cleaner and easier to balance. When you start throwing around negative modifiers it tends to start breaking the math in some not so expected ways, especially with systems that are already in a question of balance such as Skill Challenges.

As you say, I’m not ready to be the one to go take a left turn off plumb from the core design philosophy.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Beginning Only & 1st Level Only Feats*



I agree on the usefulness of Beginning Only feats, however, I am not 100% certain they will see a revival in 4E. What I am breathlessly awaiting is the supposed “Backgrounds” from Forgotten Realms.  I have been itching to add a “Background Package” option to PC creation that modifies languages, available skills, skill modifiers, etc.   One issue I have is that not every member of a race is defined by their race, but as much by their culture.  I have purposely held off on this aspect though, knowing that WotC is doing something “official” in the FRPG and I want to see where they go with it before I delve into it myself.  Once we see where WotC goes with this, I’ll definitely revisit “Beginning Only” feats as they relate to cultural or racial backgrounds. I just am not comfortable crossing that ground quite yet in such a brand new system. (Especially considering some of the GSL style restrictions on what can and can’t be done with the system.)

To be honest, I think that this topic alone is a really good point for you to Fork into a new thread and get more people’s take on it since it won’t really get the required visibility here. I’d love to get a wider community view on this, but I won’t poach your territory on it, so it would be best if you forked it as the originator.




			
				redrover said:
			
		

> (PS: Third attempt. Two previous accidentally flushed.)



Friendly Suggestion - I SERIOUSLY recommend never writing a post in the actual boards. I always write them up using notepad, Word, etc. and then copy and paste them over once they are ready. This was a HARD learned lesson over the years.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Horn Slash*



With this being the 3rd feat in a tree and based on needing combat advantage, I think we have a winner.

*GORE PROFICIENCY* [Minotaur]
…..*Prerequisites:* Minotaur
…..*Benefit:* You gain proficiency with your using your horns as weapons. Treat your unarmed attacks as having a +2 proficiency bonus.

*GORE FOCUS* [Minotaur]
…..*Prerequisites:* Minotaur, Gore Proficiency
…..*Benefit:* You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls with your unarmed attacks. At 11th level this bonus increases to +2. At 21st level it increases to +3.

*HORN SLASH* [Minotaur]
…..*Prerequisites:* Minotaur, Gore Proficiency, Gore Focus
…..*Benefit:* You have trained to use your horns more effectively in close combat. If you get a melee hit on an opponent against whom you have combat advantage, you deal +2 points of gore damage.
…..*Special:* At 11th level you deal +4 points of damage, and at 21st level you deal +6 points of damage.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> On Stances



Stances are defined here (only place as far as I know): PHB p.55 – Effect Type
*Stance:* A stance power lasts until the end of the encounter, for 5 minutes, or until you use another stance power.

What I currently have for Raging Bull…

*RAGIN BULL* [Minotaur]
…..*Prerequisites:* Str 17, Minotaur
…..*Benefit:* When you are first bloodied in an encounter you may make a free melee basic attack with a +4 bonus to the attack roll and deals an extra 1d6 damage on a hit.




			
				redrover said:
			
		

> Feats vs. Powers



The precedent for “Racial Powers granted via Feats” would be:

*Warforged* DR364
•	Paragon Feat – *Improved Immutability*
•	Epic Feat – *Warforged Fortification*
*Dragonborn* DR365
•	Paragon Feat – *Dragonborn Zeal*



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> Natural Cunning: Going with Dungeoneering seems inconsistent with the rest of the class build, since affinity for labyrinths seems to be a savage trait rather than a civilized one. The Maze Intuition feat takes care of exceptional civilized minotaurs crossing the civilized/savage divide. I like the racial +2 Perception bonus, but would suggest maybe:
> •	Hunter’s Heritage: +2 Perception, +2 on saving throws vs. fear.
> This supports above normal senses and above normal stubbornness, both of which I’ve always considered core minotaur racial traits.



The only problem here is they already have a feat that can grant +5 to saves vs. fear.  I’ve also seriously considered adding in the following as a racial trait:

*Perceptive:* You gain training in the Perception skill.

Together I think removes the need for Natural Cunning/Hunter’s Heritage. If they want a bonus to Perception they have normal feats available in the form of *Skill Focus* or *Alertness*.




			
				pukunui said:
			
		

> Keeping the MM Minotaur



Sounds like a fair character, though I think it might still lack in overall Bang-for-the-Buck compared to the PHB races or the Warforged. Keep us posted on how it works out.  I’ve got nothing against people using the MM entries as-is, I just think they all fall pretty weak compared to PHB races, and they are definitely in need of “tweaking” for certain homebrew campaign worlds. The classic “evil minotaur” of the MM just doesn’t fit my world.  Everyone’s taste is different, which is why there are Homebrew/House Rule boards.


----------



## pukunui (Jul 17, 2008)

Khaalis said:


> Sounds like a fair character, though I think it might still lack in overall Bang-for-the-Buck compared to the PHB races or the Warforged. Keep us posted on how it works out.  I’ve got nothing against people using the MM entries as-is, I just think they all fall pretty weak compared to PHB races, and they are definitely in need of “tweaking” for certain homebrew campaign worlds. The classic “evil minotaur” of the MM just doesn’t fit my world.  Everyone’s taste is different, which is why there are Homebrew/House Rule boards.



He recognizes that the races in the MM are weaker than the ones in the PHB and he's happy to accept that. He sees it as the price you have to pay in order to play one of those races. Also, since he's already made his character and we've already started playing, I can see why he wouldn't particularly want me to change his character right now. He wants to see how the default rules (albeit with the single addition of the +1 to Will) work in actual play before I start tinkering - and I think he's concerned that some of the changes I am thinking of making will make the minotaur less appealing and will make him regret choosing it. He probably also doesn't like the idea of having a character that's constantly in flux while the DM tries to figure out what suits his world best. All of that's fair enough, so I'll just leave it alone for now. I'll tinker with the minotaur when he's ready for it -- or when no one is playing one in the campaign.


----------



## redrover (Jul 19, 2008)

*Stances:* Thanks so much! I guess I was so focused on feats, I stopped looking under _powers._ (*Double D’oh*) (*kicks self*) 


   Anyhow, what I thought about stances was wrong, so the word “stance” in my feat ideas should be replaced. Seems to affect *Sundering Strike, Giant’s Throw*, and *Tipping.* 

   I will just have to find another term to use when a move action is expended to set up a feat, which is then completed with a standard action. “Deliberate attack?” “Combination attack”? “Complex attack?” Hmm…

   ((The concept would also fit an *Aiming* feat (sacrifice your move action for some bonus – better attack, better damage, better crit chance, etc. Maybe a feat chain that gives one of these at each Tier?) But that’s not really for minotaurs.))


*General Note*: Following and down with your comments up through ‘Beginning Feats. Cool.


*FR Background Book: *(*salivating*) Can’t wait!

*Fork Thread:* Maybe in future. Makes no sense to me to start a speculative discussion about stuff we know is in prep. IMO once we know it’s in prep, it’s too late for board talk to be useful—project is probably too far along. If someone from WotC was to start a thread…well, that would be different. As it is, I think it more useful to talk about topics that are not confirmed near completion.

*Posts:* Yeah, I write off-line, too. It’s just that sometime I get online and start editing a bit…

*Horn Slash redux: *Yep, I think it’s looking good.

   Had a few new thoughts on the old unarmed/natural weapon/gore feat topic:

*Unarmed vs. Gore Redux:* I’ll take another stab at this concept from a slightly different angle. Remember the thought that the default should be the weakest attack?

   Well, assume our weakest attack is the “generic” unarmed strike. No one would take one of these in deadly combat if a weapon was available. All nonspecific unarmed strikes deal the same amount of “generic” damage, as listed in the weapon tables. At this level, choice of unarmed attack mode (punch, kick, bite gore, etc.) is merely cosmetic and can be considered flavor description.

   However, once we add a feat (or power) into this mix, we have added a definitional factor and an enhancement to a previously generic attack mode. The attack, when augmented by the feat, is no longer generic, by virtue of the special effects granted by the feat. Such an attack is better than the generic attack and may be a useful as a weapon attack.

   The player’s choice to activate the feat has lifted the combat mode out of the “generic” category and into the category of a specific attack mode.
   The attack can still be used generically if the feat is not used. However, if the feat _is_ used, we have to look at the situation to see if the attack mode would be hindered or stopped by tactical factors.

   If so, any local condition that stops the now-specific attack mode from being used also prevents the feat from being used. Another generic attack mode might be used according to the generic default attack rules, provided it is not also blocked by the existing tactical factor.

   For example, *Hammer Punch* might be an unarmed combat power that delivers 2[W] + save vs. knockdown (prone), where the “weapon” is a hand dealing unarmed damage. The power might be an at-will, unlocked by the feat *Pugilist.*

   Do we then get a whole path of attacks keyed to the feat Pugilist? How do you organize them in a book of say a dozen feat-based paths – by path, by chapter (feat chapter, power chapter), or some other scheme? Do we close a gateway feat or leave it infinitely expandable? How do advanced racial feats and powers fit into this scheme?

_brief pause...
_




*Khaalis:* Did I mention that one impetus for the Tipping feat was your Mount thread? Will try to get a post up there over the weekend.

*Raging Bull:* Found a very old thread on half-orcs that I may weigh in on. Found an example in MM of same power with two different names: Minotaur Ferocity, Orc Death Blow. Recommended changing latter to Ferocity for the PC version, since a later Orc power is Inspire Ferocity.

   If new Raging Bull is essentially the Human Berserker racial trait, I wonder if the existing MM name should be used. I’ve always thought it’s a bit confusing if the exact same ability has multiple names. Maybe should write around this. (Wag of the Finger to WotC for Dragonborn Senses, which locks what should be a generally available racial trait to one race).

*Warforged: *I’m pretty sure I don’t have access to DR364 here—is this material online?

*Hunter’s Heritage, Fear:* Well, a basic racial trait +2 save vs. fear is, perhaps, a little weaker than a +2 Skill bonus, since the application is more limited (but maybe not enough to be significant here) Let’s assume balance effect of "skill or save"  is a wash.

   We already take Racial Skill bonus + Training + Focus for _skills_ without batting an eye, so I don’t see a big balance issue here.

   Running the numbers, a +2 racial fear save gives the minotaur a 10% advantage over humans on a fear save, which is a reasonable boost for a racial advantage, and a total of 65% recovery success. Adding the feat at +25% brings the total to 90% recovery vs. fear, with racial and feat bonuses essentially out of the mix for further boosts. 

   This primarily leaves power and magic bonuses to get the minotaur over 100% recovery from non-boosted fear effects after single round. As I recall, attributes don’t affect saves at all. 

   This (the 90% level) is rather where I would expect minotaurs to be at their default level, which is 10th. (I’d be more comfortable with 80-85% than 90%, but am willing to take 90% as a working outside limit).

   Perhaps, doing the racial +2 and shifting the +5 save to Paragon Tier could be considered.

*New Idea:* While the following was inspired by the minotaur buffed vs. fear, it also might be useful to minotaurs less so. 



*Bull’s      Fortitude (Heroic)*
*Prerequisites:* Minotaur
*Benefit:* When you suffer a fear effect that would normally make you      move (flee, shift, or so on), you can remain in your current square until      the end of your next turn. If you make your saving throw vs. fear at that      time, you recover normally; otherwise you suffer the forced movement.
 
   (Originally I wanted to call this “Shake It Off”, but that’s taken by the Warlord. Effectively, the minotaur at 100%+ vs. fear can be paused, but not run off, which speaks to racial stubbornness. The other significant aspect is that while he’s shaking it off, the minotaur is effectively pinned in his square, which has other tactical consequences.)



*Natural Cunning/Hunter’s Heritage:* I have long suggested NC be canned. But HH I think is a really core for the race. 

   I seem to recall that some of your earlier drafts had a +2 Perception bonus as a racial trait. However, I’ve been letting your versions overwrite instead of keeping a copy of each, so I have no way to check this.

   (*scribbles in “Little Black Book of Design* “Keep all versions.”).

   That said, the Alertness and Focus bonuses, anyone can get. Minotaurs have always had _exceptional_ perception/senses as a race, so a nominal racial boost over what the general run of characters can expect seems reasonable to me.

   In 4e, that’s pretty much a +2 racial boost.

   I guess what it boils down to is: of three bonuses (_perception,_ _dungeon proficiency_, and _fear save),_ which two are most thematic. For a civilized minotaur (surface dwelling, ship competent), I’d go with perception and fear save. Your mileage may vary.

   I must admit, I have not taken a close look at negative save modifiers in 4e yet. At my current knowledge level, I would expect to start running into -2 at Paragon and -4 at Epic, but that might be more 3e than 4e. Maybe I’ll shake loose some time to look at this.

   Done for now.


----------



## pukunui (Jul 19, 2008)

Judging from what Mearls said in that paraphrased interview posted recently, it sounds like the minotaur may get an official expanded write-up at some point. Just throwing that out there ...


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 19, 2008)

pukunui said:


> Judging from what Mearls said in that paraphrased interview posted recently, it sounds like the minotaur may get an official expanded write-up at some point. Just throwing that out there ...




I don't remember this one.  Can you post a link?




			
				redrover said:
			
		

> Warforged



Don't have a lot of time to post, but I did see this one question I could answer quickly.
Full Dragon 364
Just the Warforged Article


----------



## pukunui (Jul 20, 2008)

Khaalis said:


> I don't remember this one.  Can you post a link?



It's over at Critical Hits. The relevant bit is this bit:



> *Q: Are there plans to write up all the races from the back of the Monster Manual like the Warforged got?*
> A: Maybe not all of them… Kobolds, for example, are too powerful. (When has that ever come up before in D&D?) They’d like to eventually do most of them for full write up. More of a question of “when” than “if.”


----------



## amnuxoll (Jul 20, 2008)

I just had to say:  This is outstanding material.  Nice work.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 21, 2008)

redrover said:
			
		

> *FR Background Book:* (*salivating*) Can’t wait!



Check here. Very end of the article is a download for an FRPG preview which includes a fair sized number of sample *Backgrounds*.




			
				redrover said:
			
		

> For example, Hammer Punch might be an unarmed combat power that delivers 2[W] + save vs. knockdown (prone), where the “weapon” is a hand dealing unarmed damage. The power might be an at-will, unlocked by the feat Pugilist.
> 
> Do we then get a whole path of attacks keyed to the feat Pugilist? How do you organize them in a book of say a dozen feat-based paths – by path, by chapter (feat chapter, power chapter), or some other scheme? Do we close a gateway feat or leave it infinitely expandable? How do advanced racial feats and powers fit into this scheme?



This is suitable for a complete topic of its own.  My “personal” opinion is that something like this particular example (i.e. Pugilist) is best accomplished by a new class. In this particular instance, something like a “Scrapper” class that is a martial unarmed combat fighter. A hybrid between striker and defender, based on the “combat style” you take (primarily strikes akin to Karate, or something defensive based on throws, etc. akin to Aikido). 

However, with that said, you “could” technically do a series of feat chains along the same lines.  We already have the precedent for *”Power Substitution”* feats (these examples can be seen in the DDI Material for the Warforged and the Dragonborn).  However, it opens up the can of worms arguments on whether “Natural Attacks” are viable or meaningful in 4E. IMHO, I have no issue with “natural weapons”.  

The PHB already says that unarmed attacks count as weapons, both in the equipment table as well as specifically calling out that they may be used with melee class powers as the weapon for _”weapon”_ keyword powers.  To this you could add feats that improve the usefulness of these weapons. 

Examples:

*CLAW FOCUS*
*Prerequisite:* Claw natural weapon
*Benefit:* Your claws are considered s Simple Weapon of the Light Blades group rather than Improvised Weapons of the Unarmed group.

*CLAW SPECIALIZATION*
*Prerequisite:* Claw natural weapon, Claw Focus
*Benefit:* Your claws deal 1d6 damage.

*VICIOUS CLAWS*
*Prerequisite:* Claw natural weapon, Claw Focus
*Benefit:* The _Vicious Claws_ racial attack power replaces one of your attack power. The power it replaces must be Xth level of higher. If you do not yet have an Xth level or higher power, you can replace the appropriate power when you gain it.
*Insert Power Here*

To this I would also modify the Enchant Magic Item ritual to create a new ritual – _”Enchant Natural Weapon”_; making it more expensive and probably slightly higher level.  However, I don’t know how well this would go over considering some of the impassioned arguments AGAINST natural weapons that we have seen.




			
				redrover said:
			
		

> If new Raging Bull is essentially the Human Berserker racial trait, I wonder if the existing MM name should be used. I’ve always thought it’s a bit confusing if the exact same ability has multiple names. Maybe should write around this. (Wag of the Finger to WotC for Dragonborn Senses, which locks what should be a generally available racial trait to one race).



The problem here is that there are a LOT of powers/abilities that are identical but have different names. “Sure Strike/Careful Strike” is a prime example as many of the Paragon Path powers such as _Angelic Action = Beast Stalker’s Action = Shadow Assassin’s Action = Feytouched Action = Battle Mage Action_. Many of the MM attacks are the same from creature to creature as well, but with different names for flavor. This is a running theme in 4E. There are only so many mechanical combinations, but the naming can add flavor to them to make them fit many more applications than a standard generic name could.




			
				redrover said:
			
		

> I seem to recall that some of your earlier drafts had a +2 Perception bonus as a racial trait. However, I’ve been letting your versions overwrite instead of keeping a copy of each, so I have no way to check this.



The original MM version has a +2 Perception (rather than the +2 Athletics I gave).



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> *Hunter’s Heritage*



The additional +2 to fear saves still doesn’t thrill me.  How about the following?

*HEREDITARY SENSES* – [Minotaur]
*Prerequisites:* Wis 13, Minotaur
*Benefit:* You gain a +1 bonus to all defenses against powers with the Fear keyword. 
…..You gain a +2 bonus to Perception checks.

This could then be added as a Prerequisite to _”Direction Sense”_.



			
				redrover said:
			
		

> * Bull’s Fortitude (Heroic)
> Prerequisites:* Minotaur
> *Benefit:* When you suffer a fear effect that would normally make you move (flee, shift, or so on), you can remain in your current square until the end of your next turn. If you make your saving throw vs. fear at that time, you recover normally; otherwise you suffer the forced movement.



Not sure if this is too powerful for Heroic or not. Resisting forced movement is pretty up there in relative power. Also, I think it would require something akin to the following:

*Special:* You cannot choose to move while this feat is in effect. 




			
				pukunui said:
			
		

> Judging from what Mearls said in that paraphrased interview posted recently, it sounds like the minotaur may get an official expanded write-up at some point. Just throwing that out there ...



But we have no idea when that might, and even then the MM race is all about being evil and dedicated to Baphomet and other demons. Not sure how they will translate that over.



			
				amnuxoll said:
			
		

> I just had to say: This is outstanding material. Nice work.



Thanks. Still tweaking it and making editorial changes as well. Hopefully it will get put to bed as a finished topic soon.


----------



## redrover (Jul 23, 2008)

A few quick notes:

*Dragonlance:* The novels I am looking for (all by Richard Knaak)--


_Kaz the Minotaur _(sequel to the Huma novel, and #4 in its series, as I recall)
_Blood Night
Blood Tides
Blood Empire
_ 
The last three comprise the _Minotaur War_ trilogy. (I’ve given up searching my stacks and have gone to library loan to get these. We'll see if it's faster.)

*Feat Naming:* OK, different, but I can see where it’s coming from now.

*Hereditary Senses: *


Like      the effect.
Name      leaves me cold, too static, not evocative enough.
Don’t      like the prereq idea. If the feat chains are too long, we end up assigning      all the class feats. Too confining, IMO.
Think      it works best as racial trait entry. That would incorporate the prereq      concept without the problem noted above.
 *Bull’s Fortitude: *
_Power:_ Consider, this is not a general ability like the Dwarf’s, but specifically targets “fear” effects, which IMO limits it considerably. Second, it is a feat, so there is an opportunity cost as well. 



I must admit I don't have a really good handle on how common fear-based monster push attacks are at the Heroic Tier, yet. If this doesn't really kick in as a monster power until Paragon Tier, then moving it up to there makes more sense. 



(I would definitely peg at Paragon if the baseline minotaur was 11th instead of 10th Level, but there you go.)

_Special:_ Agree. The intention is that the PC not move. Would changing “can” to “must remain…turn if you use this feat.” work, or do you think that limits the player too much? 


*Re: Natural Weapons*
Saw a Verision post on the En-Wiki Planescape races thread a few days ago that suggests we might have common ground with respect to feats. I'd post a link if I had a little more time now. Maybe next time.



*Various Answers:* Thanks!


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 23, 2008)

redrover said:
			
		

> *Dragonlance:* The novels I am looking for (all by Richard Knaak)—{snip}



Don’t think I ever read any of them, though I have enjoyed quite a few of Knaak’s novels (D&D and other). 



> *Hereditary Senses: *
> [*]Name      leaves me cold, too static, not evocative enough.



I’m open to suggestions. Naming isn’t always my strongest suit.



> *Hereditary Senses: *
> [*]Don’t      like the prereq idea. If the feat chains are too long, we end up assigning      all the class feats. Too confining, IMO.



Good argument. I’ll nix the higher stacking of prerequisites.



> *Hereditary Senses: *
> [*]Think      it works best as racial trait entry. That would incorporate the prereq      concept without the problem noted above.



The race already has a lot of strong racial traits. Adding another I think, is too unbalancing, especially considering the already existing feats in the same style (e.g. this is built like _Escape Artist_).




> *Bull’s Fortitude: *
> _Power:_ Consider, this is not a general ability like the Dwarf’s, but specifically targets “fear” effects, which IMO limits it considerably. Second, it is a feat, so there is an opportunity cost as well.



Good arguments for Heroic tier.



> I must admit I don't have a really good handle on how common fear-based monster push attacks are at the Heroic Tier, yet. If this doesn't really kick in as a monster power until Paragon Tier, then moving it up to there makes more sense.
> (I would definitely peg at Paragon if the baseline minotaur was 11th instead of 10th Level, but there you go.)



Fear is pretty well balanced among the tiers. In the MM1 there are the following breakdowns of monsters with Fear powers:
•	*Heroic:* 17
•	*Paragon:* 20
•	*Epic:* 18
Sp overall, I guess Heroic is good.




> _Special:_ Agree. The intention is that the PC not move. Would changing “can” to “must remain…turn if you use this feat.” work, or do you think that limits the player too much?



 I wouldn’t say “must” as there may actually be times you _Want_ to allow the forced movement. However, you don’t want the minotaur to be able to move outside of the effect of the push by using their own “move action” during the _Interim_ period on this feat’s effect.



> *Re: Natural Weapons*
> Saw a Verision post on the En-Wiki Planescape races thread a few days ago that suggests we might have common ground with respect to feats. I'd post a link if I had a little more time now. Maybe next time.



I’ll try to find this. I’ve been having a lot of trouble with the site not loading for me lately (many time-outs).


----------



## redrover (Jul 26, 2008)

*Claw feats:* Like them all!

*Naming (Hereditary Senses):* I’’ll think about it...

*Naming Minotaurs:* While I like your list generally, it’s for a homebrew campaign. I thought it might be fun to put together a more generic version, based on the literature. I’ve been unable to turn up _Ashes of the Sun_ yet (which as I recall had a fair number of female names), but the following are from various other sources:

*Male:* Azak 3, Crespos 3, Eunostos 1, Grom 2, Hotak 3, Kalel 3, Kolot 3, Lothan 3, Tinos 2, Rahm 3, Scurn 2, Zhanrax 6.

*Female:* Azia 4, Bekka 4, Furah 5, Ghaji 5, Helati 2, Kalia 4, Maritia 3, 

Makela 4, Nephera 3, Noori 5, Valuna 4, Zyri 3.

  1 _Day of the Minotaur_
  2 _Kaz the Minotaur_
  3 _Minotaur War_ trilogy
  4 Inspired by male names from the _Minotaur War_ trilogy_._
  5 Inspired by male names from _Slayers Guide to Minotaurs._
  6 _Ashes of the Sun; _found a review with this name

_Other Notes:_ The female name “Bekka” is not derived from “Bakka” (a general), but from “Bek”, another male minotaur mentioned in these books. 

  The most evocative minotaur names,  are perhaps those that either suggest the Grecian heritage (e.g.:“Knossos”) or create a lowing or bellowing sound effect (which is why “Noori” and “Valuna” are my favorites on the female list). A name that doesn’t sound solid and impressive in baritone is probably not optimal.

  As the party gnome put it: “Why name minotaurs?...Just “be-cows…”
  (We did kill him for that, by the way.)

Q: "How does a winged bull attack?"
A: "Tauran feathers."
(We killed him for this one, too.)





*More Book Notes:*


DL,      Knaak, R: _Land of the Minotaurs_      (Lost Histories #04, ’96)
As I recall, Kaz first shows up in _The Legend of Huma_ (Heroes #03)
 


Swan,      T.B.: Two prequels to _Day of the      Minotaur:_
  [FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]_Cry Silver Bells (1st)_
  [FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]_The Forest of Forever (2nd)_



In      the Warhammer fanatasy series, the orc Thrall runs into a peaceful Tauran      culture (still checking on specific titles).
 


Tamora      Pierce (juv fic) stories set in Tortall have a minotaur-like creature called      a Taurus (I may get to these if I have time; thanks, wiki).
 
*Side Note:* Your use of the word “argument” a few times in your last post is a little outside my comfort zone. Perhaps “point” would be more precise?  “Argument” has a subtext of contention, and this discussion strikes me as a process of creation, not conflict. Just sayin'...

*En-Wiki:* Yes I’ve noticed the site has been a bit twitchy. Took me a while to get there the first time, and I haven’t been able to get back recently.

*Quote of the day:*
  ”The minotaurs prided themselves on the fact that, of all the races save perhaps the elves, they were the most literate.  While physical strength was the final arbiter in their society, knowledge was the tool that honed that strength.”  _— Kaz, the Minotaur, Chapter 1._

Ta-ta!


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 30, 2008)

Took your advice and did some Greek naming convention (as well as used a few of the literary names you listed, but not too many as it seems a bit wrong to wholesale steal them all).  Here is the current name list I have now in the write-up.

*Male Names:* Azok, Bektos, Crespos, Dotak, Euostos, Furax, Gorthan, Hurion, Jinos, Kurn, Lothan, Molot, Narax, Oloth, Perithos, Rahz, Scurn, Turok, Varas, Yorgos, Zelagius

*Female Names:* Arga, Bekka, Criseis, Danae, Eris, Furah, Ghaji, Hisia, Ione, Junomia, Kleio, Laia, Makela, Nephara, Orthala, Praxis, Relene, Sematia, Tuula, Uphoros, Valuna, Xanthe, Zyri


----------



## redrover (Aug 3, 2008)

Just another quick update or two:

1. Stumbled across Knaack's _Reaver's of the Blood Sea, _another minotaur book (Chaos Wars #4). Currently reviewing this and _Kaz._

2. The name "Asterion" has been used in several fictional treatments of the Theseus story as the name of the original minotaur/half-bull/half-prince.

3. Got over to your Risi post and commented.


----------

