Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Verision" data-source="post: 4365675" data-attributes="member: 72236">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.</blockquote>

Verification