Proposal: Minotaur - MM, (Dragon,) PH3 - which one(s) allow for L4W

[Nebten]

Yah but we are not taking on feat suggestions from forums and making it legit. Therefore the Natural Weapons feat along with charging rule suggestion is invalid. Use it in your home game, but don't bring it around here.

The "long-arms" are going to get the short end of the stick in the long run. They can be this editions half-orc. They shouldn't be coddled. The PHB3 minotaur should be come the "sexier" choice in terms of deversity whereas the "long-arms" are just brute power.

In the end, if we are not grandfathering in, then it should be a completly switched out. Anything that comes out in a Hard copy publication overrules the soft copy from Dragon/Dungeon. It should be understood that anybody playing a monsterous humanoid out of a magazine should be aware that changes may occur to their PC in the future thus buyers-beware.

 

[garyh]

I've said it before, but as a bugbear player, what was given to the Dragon minotaur in "exchange" for Oversized actually makes me worry that bugbears might get a writeup one day. It's that bad.

On the flip side, if I was creating Hrav now, I'd probably have made him a half-orc. Alas, when I created him, bugbear was the only Str/Dex race, and I wanted to run a brutal rogue. The fact that I was going for the monster pirate angle helped seal the deal in choosing bugbear.

If I was forced to convert Hrav from the MM bugbear to a bugbear version as poor as the Dragon minotaur, I guarantee you'd be seeing a proposal from me to convert him mechanically to a half-orc while keeping him a bugbear in fluff. Half-orcs kick butt in 4e. I actually really like half-orcs, too, but I'm not going to convert my fluff 5 levels into a character.

I think the leaks for the PHB3 minotaur are promising, but I still can't pass judgment until I have it in hand. I will agree, however, that Minotaur Weapon Training is the worst feat ever.

 

[renau1g]

Just an FYI this proposal has received the requisite three yes votes so it will pass around noon tomorrow EST unless two judges vote no.

 

[garyh]

I vote YES to the proposal forcing a player to choose one of the two minotaur options. The MM version with oversized weapons, but without access to the minotaur feats/PP, etc, offered in Dragon, PHB3, and subsequent WoTC offerings, or the Dragon version, with full access to all racial feats, etc, but without the oversized weapons.

I'll vote YES to this as well. Allowing the existing PC's to stay as they were created and allowing new PC's to choose is okay with me. Seems fair to everyone. I'd be okay with this approach being taken with bugbears.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Shouldn't we wait to see what the PHB3 brings minotaurs before making a decision? Seems like we're sort of jumping the gun.

 

[renau1g]

Well the reason I voted yes is that I felt that it would be unfair to new PC's if they were told that 4 minotaur PC's are super special and can wield oversized weapons but they weren't given that option. Now if all 4 of them were inactive I might have voted differently, but at least 1 is still active. I feel that the choice for a player between oversized or full support by Wotc for the entire run of 4e is a choice they need to make, but its fair and doesn't penalize for the lazy way WOTC did the write-up in Dragon. Now once PHB3 comes out mohollaran can decide "hey, those racial feats are teh awesome sauce and I'd like to take them" and re-build as a "short-arm".

 

[elecgraystone]

Yah but we are not taking on feat suggestions from forums and making it legit. Therefore the Natural Weapons feat along with charging rule suggestion is invalid. Use it in your home game, but don't bring it around here.

To be clear I'm not proposing feats in ANY way. I'm saying what a GOOD minotaur feat would be to me by showing examples. The theoritical feats in my post that are on par with other racial feats are a stark contrast to the suckfest that is minotaur feats we have now.

The "long-arms" are going to get the short end of the stick in the long run. They can be this editions half-orc. They shouldn't be coddled. The PHB3 minotaur should be come the "sexier" choice in terms of deversity whereas the "long-arms" are just brute power.

If 'long-arms' get a short stick they know it going in. If the feats to date are an indication of how 'sexy' the short arms are going to be I'm thinking the they got the short end of the stick...

In the end, if we are not grandfathering in, then it should be a completly switched out.

However that isn't the case here. We're talking about grandfathering them in and if we do that then why not allow new characters to have the option the grandfathered characters had.

Anything that comes out in a Hard copy publication overrules the soft copy from Dragon/Dungeon. It should be understood that anybody playing a monsterous humanoid out of a magazine should be aware that changes may occur to their PC in the future thus buyers-beware.

I think you are misunderstanding things. We're talking about a soft copy overruling a hard copy (dragon vs MM). Once PHB3 comes out it'll be a hard copy vs a hard copy. If in fact a hard copy publication overrules the soft copy, then we wouldn't be able to make a minotaur without oversized since the only hard copy minotaur right now has that. So are you really saying that you agree that all minotaurs SHOULD have oversized?

 

[ryryguy]

Well, it seems like the judges have made up their minds already, but I'll throw in my two cents.

The "monster as PC" rules from the original MM have always had the caveat that they were intended primarily for DMs to make NPCs, and that later published versions intended for PC use would likely be different. So while it's true that when the later published version for PCs do arrive, they aren't "errata" per se. But the earlier rules were already marked as being temporary, so they should be retired, and replaced by the later, PC-focused rules.

I actually don't much like the idea of grandfathering in the older versions for existing PCs, either - if this affected a PC in my home game, I'd push him to change to the new rules. But I can certainly see why a player would want to keep the original version, and I woul give way if the player felt really strongly about it. So same thing here in L4W - keep the old version if you must.

I honestly do not see the point of keeping the old rules as a viable choice for new PCs. Why exactly is that important to do? I'd rather just have one set of rules - the ones designed specifically for PC's. Saying that the new version of a race is "crap" is a subjective judgement. And if you do feel that way, then pick another race - there are plenty to choose from. There's no guarantee that every one has to suit everybody's tastes.

I'm not saying this because of any particular feeling about any particular version of minotaurs (or bugbears). I feel this way about any of the MM "races" which later get a PC version write up. It's a bad precedent to keep multiple versions alive. (And though folks now seem to be saying that if they keep the old version they won't use any feats that come with the new version, how long will it be before someone proposes opening those up?)

Let me ask this, if they release a PC version of a MM race where no one actually had a PC using the MM version, would there be any reason to keep the MM race on the allowed list?

 

[elecgraystone]

I honestly do not see the point of keeping the old rules as a viable choice for new PCs.

Well The issue I think is it really a viable choice? In it's current form a lot of people find it at best a sub-par choice. Right now when I look at the warforged or the goliath I agree. This may change in the PHB3 but I'd be pleasantly surprised if it actually does.

Let me ask this, if they release a PC version of a MM race where no one actually had a PC using the MM version, would there be any reason to keep the MM race on the allowed list?

Well if no one had a minotaur I'd feel the same way. The dragon minotaur actually became LESS tempting to take than a regular stated out race after the dragon article. IMO MM minotaurs where about even with other races. Dragon made then fall to below other picks for characters using STR and CON.

I think a testament to the MM being fairly well balanced is the fact that we didn't have a horde of them here, with people picking Goliaths and warforged and not rolling just minotaurs even though they use the same stats and the minotaurs deal slightly more damage.

I'd argue for keeping MM stats for any race if the changes made me think that no one would ever pick one. Right now I wouldn't pick a dragon minotaur and I wouldn't expect anyone else to. Honestly, if I was looking for a STR/CON race I most likely wouldn't pick a MM minotaur either but I'd at least consider it. I'd pick a race with only STR or CON (I'd at least be able to pick racial power and feats I'd use) over a dragon minotaur though. They suck that bad IMO.

I actually don't much like the idea of grandfathering in the older versions for existing PCs, either - if this affected a PC in my home game, I'd push him to change to the new rules.

Normally I'd agree with you. I wouldn't have thought twice about pushing for adopting any other dragon race. However in the minotaurs case... If we keep both then someone might actually play one.

 

[ryryguy]

As I said, I'd prefer a policy that MM races are always retired when PC races come out without any regard for the specific changes involved. And your post, and most of this thread, is a big reason why. I'd prefer to have a general policy than to have to debate the subjective merits of different versions each time this happens.

I suppose minotaur is weird in that we're apparently getting TWO new versions - Dragon and PH3. But even if Dragon versions of races might be questionable, I think the policy would definitely make sense for anything that comes in a Player's Handbook.