Forked Thread: Proposal: Minotaur Race from Dragon

[garyh]

This seems perfectly logical. The new minotaur race would be approved as written. The bugbear race would stay the same until such time as there is another version, at which time the approval process would be put in place again.

And the feat would be added as a separate house-rule, technically unrelated to the race approvals.

That works for me.

 

[renau1g]

(I see Oversized is about the same as Superior Weapon Proficiency power-wise).

The issue lies when this ability is combined Superior weapon and then the trouble can multiply, at least that's my take. I'm not convinced it's too overpowered (as it'll net to a +1 dmg-ish), just bringing it up

 

[Lord Sessadore]

so, not only are we NOT nerfing minotaurs, you're now suggesting that we, in fact, BUFF them.

Er .. um ... Maybe it's not such a good idea. I just have a lot of trouble finding how Goring Charge is useful. In my opinion, it should either be made useful or be forgotten. Pretty well every other racial encounter power will get used nearly every encounter, whereas Goring Charge is ... pathetic. Str+2 vs. AC, 1d6+Str damage and prone? Anyone who would actually use that with any regularity will have better at-wills than that, which means that they won't use it.

Basically my thinking is this: A racial power you're never going to use might as well not be there. If you're going to give a racial power, give one that is useful.

 

[garyh]

The issue lies when this ability is combined Superior weapon and then the trouble can multiply, at least that's my take. I'm not convinced it's too overpowered (as it'll net to a +1 dmg-ish), just bringing it up

Yeah, it'd be combined, but if we're charging a feat for Oversized now, then I really don't have a problem with someone spending two feats for a superior Oversized weapon. Or three to add Weapon Focus on top of that!

If Hrav spends three feats (once the Oversized Feat applies to bugbears), that looks like this (all weapons with the same Prof bonus):

Feat 1 - Weapon Prof (Rapier) - 1d6 (shortsword) to 1d8
Feat 2 - Oversized - 1d8 to 1d10
Feat 3 - Weapon Focus (Light Blades) - 1d10 to 1d10+1/tier

The average damage goes from 3.5 per W to 5.5 per W + 1/tier at the cost of three feats. Seems fair to me. That's a lot of feats, even in 4e. And oversized only accounts for 1 damage per W of that improvement.

And yeah, I realize the weapon I'm interested isn't brutal, which avoids a separate problem.

 

[SeaPainter]

Did anyone even have an issue with "Oversized" before this minotaur article came out?

 

[Oni]

Er .. um ... Maybe it's not such a good idea. I just have a lot of trouble finding how Goring Charge is useful. In my opinion, it should either be made useful or be forgotten. Pretty well every other racial encounter power will get used nearly every encounter, whereas Goring Charge is ... pathetic. Str+2 vs. AC, 1d6+Str damage and prone? Anyone who would actually use that with any regularity will have better at-wills than that, which means that they won't use it.

Basically my thinking is this: A racial power you're never going to use might as well not be there. If you're going to give a racial power, give one that is useful.

Use it with an AP to gain CA to gain +2 to land your Daily.

Lock down an opponent, they will have the option of standing up and either shifting away, moving away provoking an OA, or attacking You. Or I guess they could just stay on the ground and let you beat on them.

Take the Opportunity Gore feat (heroic level) and be able to Goring Charge on any OA regardless if you've already used the power or not without using it up. Being able to knock prone on any OA seems very good to me.

 

[garyh]

Did anyone even have an issue with "Oversized" before this minotaur article came out?

There were more than a few complaining about it in the 4e rules forum. No one here in L4W was specifically peeved, or at least stated as much here.

The typical complaint was that Oversized was a min-max CharOp dream that would make all non-Oversized races obsolete. As you can see, that hasn't been the case in L4W.

 

[Oni]

Did anyone even have an issue with "Oversized" before this minotaur article came out?

I think it can get a little out of hand with certain things. Bugbear Daggermaster? Yes please. Those bigger dice will really shine on crits.

[edit: Actually if oversized isn't removed I think that would be my second character...]

 

[SeaPainter]

There were more than a few complaining about it in the 4e rules forum. No one here in L4W was specifically peeved, or at least stated as much here.

The typical complaint was that Oversized was a min-max CharOp dream that would make all non-Oversized races obsolete. As you can see, that hasn't been the case in L4W.

Then maybe this is an overly simplistic view, but... why don't we just ignore the article, that isn't openly accessable to most players anyway? I mean, the world isn't dominated by giant cow-men & bugbears cleaving every skill challenge in twain with their obscenely oversized, brutal axes, ten-times the size of a full grown man, in each hand...

Heck, we don't even have a single wizard (that I know of) dropping an illusion from time to time, and that came out of an article that we all have access to.

All I'm trying to say is that as long as our world maintains variety (and avoids min/maxing) then let's not limit players in their choices...

 

[Don Incognito]

There were more than a few complaining about it in the 4e rules forum. No one here in L4W was specifically peeved, or at least stated as much here.

The typical complaint was that Oversized was a min-max CharOp dream that would make all non-Oversized races obsolete. As you can see, that hasn't been the case in L4W.

WRONG.

Or, at the very least, the evidence is inconclusive. The highest of the oversized PCs is only level 2, and nobody is going through the combat logs with a fine-tooth comb in order to make sure every PC is on the same level, damage-wise.

Also, keep some things in mind. 1, the monster manual specifically states that the monster races aren't exactly balanced for PCs. I think people need to get that 3.5e notion out of their heads that a race that's acceptable for an NPC doesn't necessarily mean that's its balanced for a PC. To quote it specifically, "note that these traits and powers are more in line with monster powers than with player chararcter powers...The DM SHOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHICH MONSTER RACES, IF ANY, TO ALLOW AS PCS IN HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN." This, to me, says that WotC KNOWS that the monster races (at least, some of them) are just straight-up BETTER than the one's in the Player's Handbook. My guess is that the Dragon article on minotaurs is an attempt to drag the race back in line with the more "normal" races. When Player's Handbook 3 comes out, I expect to see similiar changes to Githyanki and Shadar-Kai (and maybe even Kobold).

2, WotC is less concerned about fixing broken gameplay than, say, Blizzard. In WoW, if the entire ing community feels that a certain spec is OP (read: pre-wrath Ret Pallies), then Blizzard may have to nerf it. But if they do, their nerfs are going to be surgical; nerfing is never fun. WotC doesn't have that problem; due to the nature of D&D, the DM can just magically "fix" any problems that he or she (but let's face it, most likely he) encounters regarding power balance. Houseruling is fun like that. These nerfs (and I think we can all agree that the changes to the minotaur are nerfs) are suggestions as to how DMs can go about fixing the problem, rather than a stern "THIS IS HOW MINOTAURS WORK NOW".

That said, I'm for the changes.