Exploiting a Minotaur's horns

[suplee215]

If you'd stop acting all holier than thou for one frigging second you might notice two things:
1) I made allowances for that in my post.
And
2) You have three RAW examples that you yourself just listed, and yet you still argue that the one UA example will be a weapon? That's ridiculous.
You defeated your own argument.

First, the part about taxbaxi was edited in later. I admit, you did change it but I did not see the change until this reply. Second there is a difference between a 1d4 or a 1d6 and a 1d10. That makes a huge difference in terms of balance. Giving monks a 1d10 weapon option from lvl 1 will be very powerful.

[DivisibleByZero]

there is a difference between a 1d4 or a 1d6 and a 1d10. That makes a huge difference in terms of balance. Giving monks a 1d10 weapon option from lvl 1 will be very powerful.

It would be. If it were official. It's not. If and when it does become official, that is likely to change, and for that very reason.
UA is not RAW.

[Arnie82]

I 100% guarantee you with absolutely zero doubt in my mind whatsoever that, if this ever becomes official, they are not considered weapons, and that the wording will be changed to something along the lines of: "When you take the attack action you can use your horns to make a single melee attack which does 1d10 damage" or something along those lines, so that it isn't specifically called a weapon. I guarantee it.

While I agree they are not weapons, I can not agree with this at all. Is there any precedence to support you thoughts?

Everything I can think of so far would have them as natural weapons. The closest thing to what you have written that I could think of was the dragonborn breathe weapon.

[8wGremlin]

Their definition of RAW is not the same as our definition of RAW. There is no point in arguing with them, they can't see themselves as being wrong. It's the rest of us that are in their minds. We can continue and see if we can help the OP get the best from the university accepted version of RAW.

So they are unarmed strikes, does this mean a Minotaur monks horns would improve as the mink levelled?

[nickl_2000]

Their definition of RAW is not the same as our definition of RAW. There is no point in arguing with them, they can't see themselves as being wrong. It's the rest of us that are in their minds. We can continue and see if we can help the OP get the best from the university accepted version of RAW.

So they are unarmed strikes, does this mean a Minotaur monks horns would improve as the mink levelled?

Or do they turn magical at level 6

[Vaz]

You're correct. I am not willing to do this.
Mostly because the "this is playtest material" sidebar that is on every single UA article basically tells you not to.
Go read it.

<snip> These game mechanics are in draft form <snip> not refined by final game development and editing <snip> aren't officially part of the game <snip> will be refined...
That sidebar is a giant neon sign, flashing THIS IS NOT RAW!

As to the words having meaning, they specifically tell you that it has not been refined by final game development and editing. So no, the words do not have meaning. Not yet.

UA material is presented "for playtesting and to spark your imagination" just like it says. Right there in the sidebar of every single UA article.
Nothing more.

As if you think that RAW pertains only to publushed material.

Hahahahahahaha

[Scathain]

Their definition of RAW is not the same as our definition of RAW. There is no point in arguing with them, they can't see themselves as being wrong. It's the rest of us that are in their minds. We can continue and see if we can help the OP get the best from the university accepted version of RAW.

So they are unarmed strikes, does this mean a Minotaur monks horns would improve as the mink levelled?

What about the difference in language with Krynn vs, say, the Naga from Planeshift Almondcat. They specifically call out the Naga's Constrict and Bite as unarmed attacks. Tabaxi does the same. The language in Krynn simply mentions the horns being a "melee weapon". (Clearly, I agree it is a weapon) But is unarmed a special class of attack that needs to be called out to function with Tavern Brawler and Monk? Or is any non-manufactured weapon an "unarmed strike"?

[8wGremlin]

Horns. You are never unarmed. You areproficient with your horns, which are a meleeweapon that deals 1d10 piercing damage. Yourhorns grant you advantage on all checks made toshove a creature, but not to avoid being shovedyourself.
Goring Rush. When you use the Dash actionduring your turn, you can make a melee attackwith your horns as a bonus action.
Hammering Horns. When you use the Attackaction during your turn to make a melee attack,you can attempt to shove a creature with yourhorns as a bonus action. You cannot use thisshove attempt to knock a creature prone.

Key points are that the Horns are a melee weapon that deals 1d10 piercing damage, and not unarmed strikes

So anything that affects melee weapons affects the horns.

Oddities that arise.

• A Bladelock could make their pact weapon Horns.
• Booming blade, and Greenflame blade are ok to use with horns

[DivisibleByZero]

Key points are that the Horns are a melee weapon that deals 1d10 piercing damage, and not unarmed strikes

No.
Key points are:
1: UA specifically tells us, every time, in a sidebar, that these are not official rules and have not been edited or balanced
2: this particular UA is old, as in literally one of the first ones
3: every single instance of a natural weapon that officially exists in the game is either for an NPC and isn't categorized at all, or is for a PC and is either not categorized at all or is categorized as an unarmed strike.

Once again, I say with absolute certainty, that if this ever gets published officially, the horns will not be a weapon. Until they get published officially, there is no RAW pertaining to them.

[nickl_2000]

Alright at this point there are two different camps and neither are going to persuade the other. Since you will never be playing together, why not simply state your assumption and how you would exploit it.

Or if there is nothing else the thread can die. As the OP, I would prefer to see thread death over rehashed arguments going no where .

[8wGremlin]

My Apologies for not being able to help you more @nickl_2000.
I'm happy to discuss ways of using Horns in various builds etc.

There is a good community of D&D'ers at https://discordapp.com/channels/313509315627581440/313513853042294785
If your interested to talk there direct.

You may have to sign up to Mythweavers site also.

Or private message me here.

I look forward to discussing ideas and concepts.

[PrismCat21]

My two copper pieces...

UA says their horns are a weapon, so they should be used as a weapon, until the DM says otherwise.
It's common sense that they 'should' be a natural weapon, and DMs 'should' change it that way. It is not required.

UA is no more RAW than Dragon Magazine. However, if you choose to use it, the default is to follow the listed rules until the DM says otherwise.
The DM should approve every choice from outside official material before used in gameplay.

Regarding how I'd use its horns as a weapon. I'd have a shield in one hand, and keep the other free for grappling or spells. Heavy use of shoving.
Fears I'd take are Charger and/or Grappler and/or Shield Master
Mobile and Tavern Brawler would also be useful choices.

Goring Rush and Charger to move double your speed and shove your target ten feet.
Grappler to have advantage on a creature you grapple and to easily move him with you and/or shove him.
Shield Master for its extra defenses and ability to shove creatures prone. Which can't be done with Hammering Horns.

I'd use him more for battlefield control and harassing casters than anything else.

[Vaz]

How do you get more RAW than the rules that are written? The RAW could be absolute nonsense, but it is still RAW. RAW is rules as written, with no relevance to the balance or how WIP those rules may be. It doesn't stop them from being the rules as they are written.

That they may be in a first party published book, or on D&D wiki does not change what the rules say, or what is written. If you choose to include the content contained within those rules written, then RAW is what is written, as opposed to RAI (as intended) or RACSD (as common sense dictates).

But then again, he also thinks that because something is UA it can't be the most powerful class, because it's UA and is banned for being too powerful at many tables, and thus ineligible for being classed as too powerful, so I don't think you're going to get much sense out of him. Leave him to his ramblings and talk to people who aren't in the grips of senility.