Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana May 2018: Centaurs and Minotaurs

[Chaosmancer]

Source? Do you mean because they can wield larger weapons? In the MM, the centaur has a pike, but there's nothing to imply it can use it one-handed. Am I missing something?

Weapons wielded by large humanoids (like ogres, Minotaurs, trolls, giants ect) are large weapons with increased damage die.

This doesn't apply to any centaurs but they were listing out the problems with large sized pcs in general, not in specific.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Source? Do you mean because they can wield larger weapons? In the MM, the centaur has a pike, but there's nothing to imply it can use it one-handed. Am I missing something?

Yes. The MM Centaur is a specific exception to most Large-sized creatures since it uses Medium-sized weapons due to having a medium human sized torso.

The other Large sized creatures pretty consistently deal double the dice of weapon damage when using their weapons. Even PCs under the Enlarge spell deal additional damage, albeit only a d4 rather than their weapon dice.

A large sized player character such as Yaarel was positing would be expected to be able to use ogre- or MM minotaur- sized weapons and is going to expect to deal the same damage with them - absent a specific special rule such as for centaurs.

I recall a rather acrimonious argument here concerning PCs being able to use a particularly damaging weapon taken from a large-sized creature - bone devil polearm? I think. The argument being that it should have the same damage dice when wielded by a large-sized PC as when wielded by the bone devil.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Ponies are Medium, and if a Medium mount is good enough for Ghengis Khan, it is good enough for a Centaur.

Seriously, anybody who objects to a Medium sized horse body, look up the Mongol horse breed: a Mongol horse fits well within the five foot square, and when combined with a Human torso would be eye to eye with the Goliath and Firbolg.

I don't think that anyone is reasonably objecting to the concept of medium-sized centaurs. I think most of the objections concern the current existence of the Large-sized (or at least large-sized-space occupying) centaurs already in the game from the MM.

 

[SkidAce]

He also used the example that a Large PC can block a wide corridor singlehandedly.

I don't see that as a problem.

The large monsters/NPCs get to do it after all.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't see that as a problem.

The large monsters/NPCs get to do it after all.

Monsters and NPCs can do a lot of things no appropriate for PC's to do.

 

[SkidAce]

Monsters and NPCs can do a lot of things no appropriate for PC's to do.

I 100% agree with you on that.

However, I dont feel two creatures attempting to block a certain size hallway should have one fail or one succeed based solely on PC versus NPC.

Size and combat ability seem to be more applicable to the blocking.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Heh... at the end of the day, I think the entire Large PC concern comes down entirely to Large PCs expecting/wanting to use Large weapons. Everything else is a middling concern.

Being able to go nutso in combat is one of the biggest things there is for a good percentage of the message board population. That's why the Sharpshooter / Great Weapon Master feats are still argued about on and on about how "required" they are, and how "unbalanced" they are etc. etc. etc. We now throw in the possibility of Large PCs... ones that by the rules in the MM as they currently stand use large weapons that do much more damage... we now open up a whole can of worms where all of a sudden the entirety of the game's "balance" is thrown off because of the disparity in damage capability.

And it's not like they could even just remove the "large weapons" ability for Large PC creatures and replace it with the bonus d4 from like the Enlarge spell. I mean hell, look at all the complaints about making the centaur into a Medium creature! If *that* is getting some players all worked up... that's NOTHING compared to the tempest of complaints that would occur if WotC allowed for the existance of Large PCs but then removed their ability to wield oversized weapons as part of the PC write-up.

So WotC is (probably rightly) just not even opening that can of worms. No Large PCs. Easy, simple, and they never have to engage with the crapstorm from combat-first players who want Large PCs so they can be even stronger in combat, and who would go ballistic if they didn't get to because large weapons were restricted to them.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think that anyone is reasonably objecting to the concept of medium-sized centaurs. I think most of the objections concern the current existence of the Large-sized (or at least large-sized-space occupying) centaurs already in the game from the MM.

People are certainly objecting to the idea of a medium sized horse (pony) with a human torso still being, relative to most humans, quite big.

There is also the "but the MM version!" complaints, but given that the whole UA is pretty clearly talking about variant settings (in Twitter, Crawford brought up Dragonlance and Al'Quadim, both of which traditionally have Medium Centaur races) this is trivial. These are variant Centaurs, not MM Centaurs.

 

[Chaosmancer]

People are certainly objecting to the idea of a medium sized horse (pony) with a human torso still being, relative to most himans, quite big.

There is also the "but the MM version!" complaints, but given that the whole UA is pretty clearly talking about variant settings (in Twitter, Crawford brought up Dragonlance and Al'Quadim, both of which traditionally have Medium Centaur races) this is trivial. These are variant Centaurs, not MM Centaurs.

I think a big sticking point for some people was that they weren't called out as variant centaurs in the document. It is a clear fix and if they had just said so, it would have cut down a lot of the furor we're hearing about. Hindsight and all that.

 

[Parmandur]

I think a big sticking point for some people was that they weren't called out as variant centaurs in the document. It is a clear fix and if they had just said so, it would have cut down a lot of the furor we're hearing about. Hindsight and all that.

I think the furor is more a tempest in a teapot, but we'll see.

I think they are obfuscating their reasoning because they do not want to tip their hand on what product they are testing these for, personally.