Proposal 1 - dragon#364 made legal

garyh · Nov 18, 2008

Atanatotatos said:
Well, it's quite simple. I'm not a subscriber so I haven't read the article, nut it's sufficient to allow feats and other new options (if we want) and keep the oversized feature, ditching the substitution ones. After all, I think everyone will be happier that way.

This is true. This is OUR game, after all. If we like Oversized, we can keep it and WotC won't take our books or internets away.

This idea works for me.

elecgraystone · Nov 18, 2008

That would make things MUCH easier Atanatotatos. Drop the lame charge feature the article gave and let the oversized stand. That way, a quick look at the MM (or a look at the compendium) will let someone make a minotaur. They might not have all the fancy options from the article, but they can make one.

I too don't have a subscription. I've seen enough posts on it to know what's been done. That's why it bugs me that they altered the base MM class instead of adding to it like the other races. You can't just make up a minotaur any more. You have to find out which version you're talking about first. :hmm:

warderbrad · Nov 18, 2008

elecgraystone said:
That would make things MUCH easier Atanatotatos. Drop the lame charge feature the article gave and let the oversized stand. That way, a quick look at the MM (or a look at the compendium) will let someone make a minotaur. They might not have all the fancy options from the article, but they can make one.

I too don't have a subscription. I've seen enough posts on it to know what's been done. That's why it bugs me that they altered the base MM class instead of adding to it like the other races. You can't just make up a minotaur any more. You have to find out which version you're talking about first.

As someone who cheered when he heard and later read the proposed changes to the minotaur I am probably in the minority. However being that the core ideal of L4W was that it would allow (agreeably on a controlled basis), to me to disallow WOTC's attempt to correct what may have seemed ok at first and even playtested well but later was found to be broken is unbalanced. To me the minotaur does not have enough negatives to balance out. The changes that were made rectified this and brought the race into balance with the rest of the races.

Atanatotatos · Nov 18, 2008

I'd never choose a minotaur for race (mechanically speaking), honestly. Maybe the new abilities in the article would have made me change my mind, I don't know, but as it was in the MM, oversized wasn't enough for me to prefer it to, dunno, a dwarf or a human. Weapon Size increase is a good deal, but certainly it's not groundshaking.

Atanatotatos · Nov 18, 2008

Atanatotatos said:
I'd never choose a minotaur for race (mechanically speaking), honestly. Maybe the new abilities in the article would have made me change my mind, I don't know, but as it was in the MM, oversized wasn't enough for me to prefer it to, dunno, a dwarf or a human. Weapon Size increase is a good deal, but certainly it's not groundshaking.

Since this issue has come up quite a few times, I'll say clearly how I see it and compare the minotaur (MM version) with the dwarf, which is a core race and is likely to be used with similar classes

Ability bonus:
Minotaur:+2 Str,+2 Con
Dwarf:+2 Con,+2 Wis
I'd say we're pretty even here.

Speed:
Minotaur:6
Dwarf:5
The minotaur's better

Vision:
Minotaur:Normal
Dwarf:Low-light
Low-light vision is clearly better

Skill bonus:
Minotaur:+2 Nature, +2 Perception
Dwarf:+2 Endurance, +2 Dungeoneering
The Minotaur probably wins here

Other Features:
Minotaur: Ferocity(meh),Oversized(very good),Goring charge(Tide of iron's better than this)
Dwarf: proficiency with warhammers, second wind as a minor, +5 to saves vs poison, reduce push effects
I'd say the dwarf's way better. What's more, I don't know what new racial feats the Minotaur has, but I doubt they can compare with two absolutely first-class racials the darves get, Dwarven weapon training (proficiency with all axes and hammer and +2 to dmg rolls with them) and Dwarven durability (+2 healing surges/d and add constitution to surge value)

Now, obviously this is my idea. But I wouldn't trade all those nifty benefits for some more dmg. 'Cause that's what you get.

Now, if you are a Minotaur cleric who reveres Hades and he looks favorably upon you from his Invisible castle,then that's a whole different story

JoeNotCharles · Nov 18, 2008

Personally I think it was a mistake to make a blanket allowance of the MM races in the first place, since the intro to that section makes it clear that they may not be balanced:

In general, these traits and powers are provided to help Dungeon Masters create nonplayer characters (NPCs). This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, within reason. Note that these traits and powers are more in line with monster powers than with player character powers.

I would have considered them for inclusion after the game was running for 3 months, just like for new content.

But that cat's out of the bag now, so I'd suggest we officially add two subraces of minotaur to the setting (perhaps the "Angus" and "Longhorn" Minotaur). The Angus, having no horns, would get Oversized Weapons and the MM stats, while the Longhorn would get the Dragon stats and access to the feats. (We could even decide on a feat-by-feat basis which are appriate to give to the Angus, bearing in mind that its basic ability is more powerful than the Longhorn's.)

Also, I'd say the Minotaur with oversized weapons is problematic not because it's better than the Dwarf at all points, but because it's perfect for min-maxing a fighter. Str and Con bonuses AND oversized weapons is too much. The Dwarf has powers that are better for a fighter alone than oversized weapons, but the Wis bonus doesn't help quite as much. When you're in a persistent world where strangers are playing together they're going to be more sensitive to having one race that can't be touched for damage output.

Maybe a good fix would be to give the L4E minotaur all the powers from the MM and Dragon article, and add a penalty for the use of oversized weapons that brings it back into balance. For instance they could be prohibitively expensive, or have a critical fumble chance. Anyone who feels that their character is being nerfed would be compensated by the fact that they'd pick up extra abilities in exchange for some penalties, rather than having to give up their ability.

I'd also like to suggest that if a class or race gets altered, characters of that race be allowed extra retraining the next time they level up so they can swap in some of the new feats and powers easily.

garyh · Nov 18, 2008

JoeNotCharles said:
Also, I'd say the Minotaur with oversized weapons is problematic not because it's better than the Dwarf at all points, but because it's perfect for min-maxing a fighter. Str and Con bonuses AND oversized weapons is too much. The Dwarf has powers that are better for a fighter alone than oversized weapons, but the Wis bonus doesn't help quite as much. When you're in a persistent world where strangers are playing together they're going to be more sensitive to having one race that can't be touched for damage output.

Well, we've got pretty good number of approved / created characters, and only two Oversized weapon users - a minotaur battle cleric (Halford's character Brudd) and a bugbear brutal rogue (my character Hrav). So I don't see Oversized having skewed the PC population any.

Now, githyanki, on the other hand, comprise 75% of our level 2 characters! Obviously unbalanced!

On a serious note, Oversized may be an issue that the Judges need help with. Given that two of the Judges are playing the only current Oversized-using characters, we may not appear (or be - I like my 1d10 rapier!) completely unbiased.

elecgraystone · Nov 18, 2008

Atanatotatos said:
I'd never choose a minotaur for race (mechanically speaking), honestly. Maybe the new abilities in the article would have made me change my mind, I don't know, but as it was in the MM, oversized wasn't enough for me to prefer it to, dunno, a dwarf or a human. Weapon Size increase is a good deal, but certainly it's not groundshaking.

That's pretty much the way I've looked at it too. Without oversized, the minotaur is pretty weak for a race with stats that effect the same save. The warforged is a MUCH better pick for a + str and con race in that case.

warderbrad said:
To me the minotaur does not have enough negatives to balance out. The changes that were made rectified this and brought the race into balance with the rest of the races.

If this is the case then it should be errata'd in the MM to match the new race article. From my understanding they aren't going to do that so it doesn't seem SO out of balance. If it's ok to use for people without dragon, it should be ok for people WITH dragon to use.

JoeNotCharles said:
Also, I'd say the Minotaur with oversized weapons is problematic not because it's better than the Dwarf at all points, but because it's perfect for min-maxing a fighter. Str and Con bonuses AND oversized weapons is too much. The Dwarf has powers that are better for a fighter alone than oversized weapons, but the Wis bonus doesn't help quite as much. When you're in a persistent world where strangers are playing together they're going to be more sensitive to having one race that can't be touched for damage output.

Wisdom doesn't help much? You miss combat superiority? Distracting Shield? Polearm gamble? The pitfighter paragon path?

If a player wants to make a striker/defender, what's the problem with that? Quarry/sneak attack is a much bigger damage boost than oversized, so no problem there. Oversized might net you an extra point per die average, while the striker bonus is +3-8. The only issue I've ever seen is oversized is with the brutal weapon trait. 2d6 with a brutal 2 is SO much better than 1 size smaller damage of 1d12. It's more an issue with brutal than oversized.

Atanatotatos · Nov 18, 2008

I foresee a house ruling about brute weapons when we'll discuss Adventurer's Vault, indeed.

JoeNotCharles · Nov 18, 2008

elecgraystone said:
Wisdom doesn't help much? You miss combat superiority? Distracting Shield? Polearm gamble? The pitfighter paragon path?

Doesn't help as much.

If a player wants to make a striker/defender, what's the problem with that? Quarry/sneak attack is a much bigger damage boost than oversized, so no problem there.

You're right, I was kind of stuck in previous editions where maximizing your damage output was everything for fighters, and it was the other classes that got cool abilities.