This is Kinda OP

[Pichu]

Minotaurs. Minotaurs are OP. When you are unarmed, you can use the attack action to do 1d10 piercing damage with your horns, and get +2 Strength from a race. That is crazy! This is at first level. Imagine a level 5 Minotaur monk. This is crazy! However, is there something I am missing? Is this just me who thinks this is kind of broken at 1st level and higher?

[R.Shackleford]

Minotaurs. Minotaurs are OP. When you are unarmed, you can use the attack action to do 1d10 piercing damage with your horns, and get +2 Strength from a race. That is crazy! This is at first level. Imagine a level 5 Minotaur monk. This is crazy! However, is there something I am missing? Is this just me who thinks this is kind of broken at 1st level and higher?

Not at all.

Martial damage is one of the least OP things about 5e, it is so easy to lessen or negate martial damage that it isn't even funny.

There are other issues here but this is the main one.

[ES Curse]

The UA Minotaur is basically homebrew done by the designers. It isn't playtested, so it was never said to be balanced or fair.

[MaxWilson]

Minotaurs. Minotaurs are OP. When you are unarmed, you can use the attack action to do 1d10 piercing damage with your horns, and get +2 Strength from a race. That is crazy! This is at first level. Imagine a level 5 Minotaur monk. This is crazy! However, is there something I am missing? Is this just me who thinks this is kind of broken at 1st level and higher?

I don't see the problem. Any warrior can do d10 or even more at first level just by picking up a halberd, greataxe or greatsword. The minotaur's gore is very niche. It's not usable as a monk's unarmed attack, because it's not an unarmed attack--it's a gore. So there is no synergy with monk.

Besides, a Mounted Combatant can use a shield and make attacks at advantage for d12 + STR damage, as long as his mount is bigger than whatever he's attacking. If large damage dice are exciting to you, Minotaur isn't where it's at--variant human is.

[Pichu]

d12 + STR damage

How do you do a d12? Wouldn't it be a d10 for a lance? Also: A fighter riding another PC playing as a minotaur!

[Belac93]

How do you do a d12? Wouldn't it be a d10 for a lance? Also: A fighter riding another PC playing as a minotaur!

Lances are 1d12.

Also, keep in mind that this is UA. It's not meant to be balanced, it's meant to be there so we can provide feedback, and the developers can make it official.

[RickAllison]

How do you do a d12? Wouldn't it be a d10 for a lance? Also: A fighter riding another PC playing as a minotaur!

Artificer Minotaur. Burn a level 1 slot for 1d4 hours of being Large!

Really though, not OP. It is a fantastic grappling race (have both hands full and still attack), but it doesn't have a lot of synergy with anything. Also, remember that while they can get +2 Str, that comes at not getting a +1 to another stat. If we compare this to the variant human (also a +2 total), the rest of the minotaur's stuff should be roughly equal to a feat.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't see the problem. Any warrior can do d10 or even more at first level just by picking up a halberd, greataxe or greatsword. The minotaur's gore is very niche. It's not usable as a monk's unarmed attack, because it's not an unarmed attack--it's a gore. So there is no synergy with monk.
This. Nine times out of ten, unarmed-vs-armed doesn't really matter, and the tenth time you're probably taking a hefty roleplaying penalty for being a giant cow-headed monster. And Mountain Dwarves, Dragonborn, and Half-Orcs all give +2 Str, so that's hardly extraordinary either. Honestly, the Advantage on all shove attempts is probably a bigger deal-- take Shield Master, get great odds to knock 'em down and then great odds to stab 'em.

[Pichu]

Artificer Minotaur. Burn a level 1 slot for 1d4 hours of being Large!

What feature is that?

[NNescio]

Minotaurs. Minotaurs are OP. When you are unarmed, you can use the attack action to do 1d10 piercing damage with your horns, and get +2 Strength from a race. That is crazy! This is at first level. Imagine a level 5 Minotaur monk. This is crazy! However, is there something I am missing? Is this just me who thinks this is kind of broken at 1st level and higher?

Take Polearm Master and the Tunnel Fighter fighting style. Ignore RAI and stick to the RAW of PAM. Be a Vengeance Paladin while you're at it.

Yeah, this stinks of Gouda. Like a better version of the ol' Half-Ogre with a spiked chain, Combat Reflexes, Hold the Line, Spring Attack, Thicket of Blades build back in 3.5e.

[Pichu]

Take Polearm Master and the Tunnel Fighter fighting style. Ignore RAI and stick to the RAW of PAM. Be a Vengeance Paladin while you're at it.

You have limited reactions; 1 to be precise

[Grod_The_Giant]

You have limited reactions; 1 to be precise
Tunnel Fighter lets you make opportunity attacks without using up your reaction. It's just plain gross when combined with things like Sentinel or (Swashbuckler) Rogue.

[RickAllison]

What feature is that?

Infuse Potions. One of the potions that can be made with a 1st-level slot is a Potion of Growth. That has this text:


When you drink this potion, you gain the "enlarge"
effect of the enlarge/reduce spell for 1d4 hours (no
concentration required). The red in the potion's liquid
continuously expands from a tiny bead to color the clear
liquid around it and then contracts. Shaking the bottle
fails to interrupt this process.

Also one of the best things to give your Monk or anyone else with lots of attacks. 1d4 extra damage on every attack for 1d4 hours adds up quickly, it is like Divine Favor on steroids!

[Foxhound438]

Imagine a level 5 Minotaur monk. This is crazy

eeeh, not really. The horns are in fact "a weapon", and aren't a monk weapon, so you never get the martial arts attack. Sure you can still use flurry of blows, but a similar str-monk can grab a greatsword and do the same with marginally better results. Heck, if you're really into rules-lawyery, you could never benefit from any of the martial arts features, because "you are never unarmed", and are technically equipped with a weapon that isn't a monk weapon. Seems bad, and that's not even touching the problems with stats for a str monk.

[RickAllison]

eeeh, not really. The horns are in fact "a weapon", and aren't a monk weapon, so you never get the martial arts attack. Sure you can still use flurry of blows, but a similar str-monk can grab a greatsword and do the same with marginally better results. Heck, if you're really into rules-lawyery, you could never benefit from any of the martial arts features, because "you are never unarmed", and are technically equipped with a weapon that isn't a monk weapon. Seems bad, and that's not even touching the problems with stats for a str monk.

Wouldn't even get the benefit of being considered magical. The best use I see for this is a gish who doesn't want to take Warcaster. Hold a focus in one hand, a shield in the other, and whack them with your horns. Or a grappler who wants higher damage while keeping both hands occupied (really useful for Barbarians...). For a ranged Fighter, it also allows for melee attacking while keeping hands busy for ranged weapons.

[Malifice]

Minotaurs. Minotaurs are OP. When you are unarmed, you can use the attack action to do 1d10 piercing damage with your horns, and get +2 Strength from a race. That is crazy! This is at first level. Imagine a level 5 Minotaur monk. This is crazy! However, is there something I am missing? Is this just me who thinks this is kind of broken at 1st level and higher?

What?

Or you use an axe and do d12.

[R.Shackleford]

What?

Or you use an axe and do d12.

Or a greatsword and do 2d6, so OP!

I always find it funny that people think the least optimal thing in the game is the most OP. It is so easy to negate direct melee weapon damage that it isn't funny.

[NNescio]

What?

Or you use an axe and do d12.


Or a greatsword and do 2d6, so OP!

I always find it funny that people think the least optimal thing in the game is the most OP. It is so easy to negate direct melee weapon damage that it isn't funny.

I think the OP is under the mistaken impression that you can substitute Martial Arts unarmed attacks with the "gore" attack. Which is obviously wrong (otherwise Druid/Monk multiclasses would benefit even more). Heck, per RAW, it's clear that being a Minotaur screws the monk over, as he's always considered armed, and the horns are not monk weapons, so he'll never get to use Martial Arts at all (as noted by Foxhound438 earlier).

[R.Shackleford]

I think the OP is under the mistaken impression that you can substitute Martial Arts unarmed attacks with the "gore" attack. Which is obviously wrong (otherwise Druid/Monk multiclasses would benefit even more). Heck, per RAW, it's clear that being a Minotaur screws the monk over, as he's always considered armed, and the horns are not monk weapons, so he'll never get to use Martial Arts at all (as noted by Foxhound438 earlier).


This is wrong though.

You can be armed and still make an unarmed attack. Unarmed Attacks aren't just attacks with your hands but kicks, butt bounces, elbows, or whatever else.

If I have a two handed weapon I could still make an unarmed attack by kicking my enemy.

[NNescio]

This is wrong though.

You can be armed and still make an unarmed attack. Unarmed Attacks aren't just attacks with your hands but kicks, butt bounces, elbows, or whatever else.

If I have a two handed weapon I could still make an unarmed attack by kicking my enemy.

I'm talking about the Martial Arts class feature, not just unarmed strikes in general.

Martial Arts bonus unarmed strikes require the monk to be unarmed or wielding a monk weapon. Minotaurs are always considered armed, and their horns are not monk weapons (since they are neither shortswords nor a simple melee weapon), so they never get to make the bonus action unarmed strike (unless they, well, I dunno, saw off their horns or something).

The Martial Arts class feature (which Monks gain at Level 1) also confers other benefits, all of which are lost to a Minotaur Monk.

Side note, a minotaur's horns can be Magic Weapon'ed, and can also benefit from any feats or class features that specify "melee weapon".

[Elminster298]

I'm talking about the Martial Arts class feature, not just unarmed strikes in general.

Martial Arts bonus unarmed strikes require the monk to be unarmed or wielding a monk weapon. Minotaurs are always considered armed, and their horns are not monk weapons (since they are neither shortswords nor a simple melee weapon), so they never get to make the bonus action unarmed strike (unless they, well, I dunno, saw off their horns or something).

The Martial Arts class feature (which Monks gain at Level 1) also confers other benefits, all of which are lost to a Minotaur Monk.

Side note, a minotaur's horns can be Magic Weapon'ed, and can also benefit from any feats or class features that specify "melee weapon".

Again, incorrect. You do not have to be "weaponless" to use the martial arts abilities. You simply have to attack with a monk weapon or an "unarmed strike" which is defined clearly as different from weaponless.

[NNescio]

Again, incorrect. You do not have to be "weaponless" to use the martial arts abilities. You simply have to attack with a monk weapon or an "unarmed strike" which is defined clearly as different from weaponless.

Explain this then:


Martial Arts
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of Combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk Weapons, which are shortswords and any simple Melee Weapons that don't have the Two-Handed or heavy property.

You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk Weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a Shield.

• You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the Attack and Damage Rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk Weapons.

• You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon.

• When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on Your Turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a Bonus Action. For example, if you take the Attack action and Attack with a Quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a Bonus Action, assuming you haven't already taken a Bonus Action this turn.

Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk Weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a Sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon.

[Mellack]

Again, incorrect. You do not have to be "weaponless" to use the martial arts abilities. You simply have to attack with a monk weapon or an "unarmed strike" which is defined clearly as different from weaponless.

My book says you only get the bonus action unarmed strike when "you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield." Where is that defined as different from being weaponless?

[Elminster298]

My book says you only get the bonus action unarmed strike when "you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield." Where is that defined as different from being weaponless?

Yes it says "unarmed" but every single reference in the entire ability section refers to "unarmed strikes or monk weapons". There is absolutely no way you can tell me there is an interpetation of this section that says holding a sword in your hand makes your feet do less damage or inhibits your ability to use an elbow. That is absurd rationalization.

[NNescio]

Yes it says "unarmed" but every single reference in the entire ability section refers to "unarmed strikes or monk weapons". There is absolutely no way you can tell me there is an interpetation of this section that says holding a sword in your hand makes your feet do less damage or inhibits your ability to use an elbow. That is absurd rationalization.

Martial Arts only confers its benefits under the bullet points "while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield." While greatsword users might be able to finagle this away by (in an abusive manner) claiming that they're only holding the weapon (and not wielding it) while using Martial Arts since "unarmed" is not a well-defined term, Minotaurs are explicitly considered "never unarmed" as part of their "horns" racial feature anyway. Ergo, they can never benefit from Martial Arts. End of story.

Flavor-wise, holding a weapon affects your stance and balance, and can get in the way of your unarmed strikes (fist, elbow, knee, kicks, back, etc), especially if you're only trained in unarmed combat styles (or unarmed combat styles in conjunction with a limited array of weapons).

It does get kinda ridiculous in the case of the Minotaur though. Maybe the Minotaur's physique is just unsuitable with monk martial arts, but Druid/Monk multiclasses get to use Martial Arts anyway per the same reading of RAW, so it doesn't quite compute either.

[Mellack]

Yes it says "unarmed" but every single reference in the entire ability section refers to "unarmed strikes or monk weapons". There is absolutely no way you can tell me there is an interpetation of this section that says holding a sword in your hand makes your feet do less damage or inhibits your ability to use an elbow. That is absurd rationalization.

You are welcome to make any ruling you desire for your game, that is one of the major pushes in this edition. That said, the rules are pretty clearly written in this section. If you are armed with anything other than a monk weapon or have armor or a shield, you cannot do any of the following points in that section. I am not sure why strapping on a pair of greaves would mess a monk up, it would seem it would help, but those are the rules as written.

[NNescio]

You are welcome to make any ruling you desire for your game, that is one of the major pushes in this edition. That said, the rules are pretty clearly written in this section. If you are armed with anything other than a monk weapon or have armor or a shield, you cannot do any of the following points in that section. I am not sure why strapping on a pair of greaves would mess a monk up, it would seem it would help, but those are the rules as written.

Or Bladesinging while wearing greaves (I assume light armor don't have greaves) or holding a shield, for that matter.

[R.Shackleford]

My book says you only get the bonus action unarmed strike when "you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield." Where is that defined as different from being weaponless?

And you can carry a sword and not be armed with a sword.

You can make all the anti-Player Character rulings that you want and try to screw over players if you find that sort of thing fun as a DM but I rather not use RoAP (rule of anti player) mentality. That just begs to set up a DM versus player game.

[Mellack]

And you can carry a sword and not be armed with a sword.

You can make all the anti-Player Character rulings that you want and try to screw over players if you find that sort of thing fun as a DM but I rather not use RoAP (rule of anti player) mentality. That just begs to set up a DM versus player game.

Wow, you need to back off on those assumptions there. Most of the time I am a player, and I would not try holding a sword and using monk powers. I do not consider following the basic rules as they are written to be against anyone. If we were to ignore the rules, why not let the players all fly and kill things with a gaze? I personally find the game a lot more fun when there are limmitations so that there are challenges to overcome.

[Elminster298]

You are welcome to make any ruling you desire for your game, that is one of the major pushes in this edition. That said, the rules are pretty clearly written in this section. If you are armed with anything other than a monk weapon or have armor or a shield, you cannot do any of the following points in that section. I am not sure why strapping on a pair of greaves would mess a monk up, it would seem it would help, but those are the rules as written.

You are GM rules lawyering. That one word taken by itself implies a completely different meaning than the entire rest of the wording for the ability as well as the wording for the entire rest of the description for the monk as a whole. YOU can make any ruling you wish in YOUR game but I will continue to use a small amount of common sense and allow the monk to be played the way it is clearly intended and 99.5% written.

[JBPuffin]

And you can carry a sword and not be armed with a sword.

You can make all the anti-Player Character rulings that you want and try to screw over players if you find that sort of thing fun as a DM but I rather not use RoAP (rule of anti player) mentality. That just begs to set up a DM versus player game.

Using quote as a like button. That little bit there? That's flavor text, like quite a few 5e abilities have, not some anti-Monk clause.


Wow, you need to back off on those assumptions there. Most of the time I am a player, and I would not try holding a sword and using monk powers. I do not consider following the basic rules as they are written to be against anyone. If we were to ignore the rules, why not let the players all fly and kill things with a gaze? I personally find the game a lot more fun when there are limitations so that there are challenges to overcome.

And this somehow justifies taking the minotaur's main feature and turning it into a pox on anyone who thinks a cow luchador should function like a cow luchador?

[Mellack]

Also note that we are not talking about a weapon that is simply carried in a backpack, but as this was about a minotaur, their horns are always ready, so probably considered weilded.

[Mellack]

Using quote as a like button. That little bit there? That's flavor text, like quite a few 5e abilities have, not some anti-Monk clause.

Can you please specify what part you are calling flavor text?

[Elminster298]

Also note that we are not talking about a weapon that is simply carried in a backpack, but as this was about a minotaur, their horns are always ready, so probably considered weilded.

I am not saying carried or stowed away. I am very clearly saying that a monk holding a non-monk weapon in hand and wielded is still able to use feet, knees, elbows, head as weapons. Any other interpretation uses one single word to negate every single other word used to describe the monks abilities throughout the book. And that is flat out absurd.

Edit: As long as any attacks made to trigger martial arts are only made with unarmed strikes or monk weapons.

[Mellack]

I am not saying carried or stowed away. I am very clearly saying that a monk holding a non-monk weapon in hand and wielded is still able to use feet, knees, elbows, head as weapons. Any other interpretation uses one single word to negate every single other word used to describe the monks abilities throughout the book. And that is flat out absurd.


They can certainly take unarmed attacks while holding a weapon. They can take unarmed attacks while armored. I would probably let them do a head-butt unarmed attack while shackled and handcuffed.

However, those three points under monk, 1) Dex instead of Str, 2) upped dmg, and 3) bonus action attack, all specify that they only work under certain conditions. Those are that you are unarmed or using a monk weapon, and have no armor or shield. Note that all other powers, such as deflect missles will work fine.

[Elminster298]

Also note that we are not talking about a weapon that is simply carried in a backpack, but as this was about a minotaur, their horns are always ready, so probably considered weilded.

I would even go as far as to say I would let a minotaur monk use his horns with his unarmed strikes using all the same stats as an unarmed strike. Why? Because it changes nothing. Same damage, same number of attacks, same restrictions. In order to use the Gore feature it would be a separate action from it's unarmed strikes and martial arts. You see what I did there? It's called common sense. It means not wrecking and entire character just because of an unintended interpretation.

[Mellack]

I would even go as far as to say I would let a minotaur monk use his horns with his unarmed strikes using all the same stats as an unarmed strike. Why? Because it changes nothing. Same damage, same number of attacks, same restrictions. In order to use the Gore feature it would be a separate action from it's unarmed strikes and martial arts. You see what I did there? It's called common sense. It means not wrecking and entire character just because of an unintended interpretation.

You made a ruling for how you wanted your game. I said right off the bat that you can choose to make any rulings that you wish for your game. But according to the RAW, it doesn't work. That is all I said. We can discuss that it SHOULD work, or how often people will change it to work, but by the book it does not. When you said it did, I felt that needed to be pointed out that was a houserule.

[NNescio]

You are GM rules lawyering. That one word taken by itself implies a completely different meaning than the entire rest of the wording for the ability as well as the wording for the entire rest of the description for the monk as a whole. YOU can make any ruling you wish in YOUR game but I will continue to use a small amount of common sense and allow the monk to be played the way it is clearly intended and 99.5% written.

There's no rules-lawyering involved. Martial Arts is quite clear as day that it only grants the benefits it says it grants "while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield". It's a prerequisite which must be fulfilled, similar to Bladesong requiring the player not using a shield or any armor heavier than light, or Mage Armor only working on a target that is not wearing any armor.

I would also argue that the intent is clear that Martial Arts is not intended to be used while wielding non-Monk weapons. The bonus action unarmed strike in the third bullet point itself already has the limitation that it can only be taken "when you use the attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn." If the intent is that, well, "monks can make the bonus action unarmed strike so long as the attack is made via an unarmed strike or a monk weapon, and it doesn't matter if he's wielding a non-monk weapon like a greatsword or something", then what IS the point of the earlier sentence "You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield"? That whole sentence would be completely redundant, and can be deleted entirely, or modified to just "You gain the following benefits while you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield". Clearly, that line imposes an additional limitation, that the monk must also be "unarmed or wielding only monk weapons" to benefit from the three bullet points under the Martial Arts class feature.

In addition, monks only get bonus proficiencies with simple weapons and shortswords (and unarmed strikes, which everyone gets by default as per errata on Unarmed Strikes in the combat section) as part of their class package. All simple melee weapons (that aren't heavy or two-handed) are also considered monk weapons. They don't get proficiency with martial weapons. From a pure mechanical perspective, there's no need for a monk to use a non Monk weapon (since they would be non-proficient anyway), and the issue of a PC Monk wielding a Greatsword or Longsword while using the Martial Arts should not come up very often anyway unless the player multiclasses or burns a feat on Weapon Master.

(And well, personally speaking, using a Greatsword or Longsword clashes somewhat with the flavor of an Eastern-inspired martial arts monk, which is another point in favor for me RAI-wise that those weapons are not supposed to be wielded while using Martial Arts.)

Now, just because something is against RAW doesn't mean I won't allow it on my table. Rules are meant to be bent sometimes after all. If the player has a concept that requires him being a Greatsword-wielding monk, and he burns a feat on Weapon Master to do so, sure, I let him do that, and heck maybe I even consider it a Monk weapon for him, while clarifying that this ad-hoc houserule might be reverted depending on the interactions with Great Weapon Master (if he takes that feat) if the other players (and NOT me) think he's dealing too much damage (at which point he's free to respec).

I might be a bit more leery if he gets the proficiency via Fighter multiclass (or any other multiclass), because there might be some potential synergies. In which case I'll also extend the same courtesy -- an ad-hoc houserule that might be reverted (and a free respec at the point), again, if the other players (and NOT me) think it's unfair.

If a player decides to go Minotaur Monk, I will remind him per RAW that he doesn't get to benefit from Martial Arts. if being a Minotaur Monk is that important to his character concept then again I will make another houserule here to let him continue using it.

But it's important to note that all the above are houserules and not RAW. They are not something a player is entitled to, as they cannot be expected from a reading of the rules. Generally, I'm less amendable to make houserules for more experienced players, or for optimized characters, as they already have most of the help they need, but again, circumstances vary.

[Battlebooze]

I'm sure a Minotaur monk could always have his horns removed with a saw.

Or even better, hire a Gnome to put screw mounts on his horns stumps. That way he could take them on and off or put on new ones, shiny magical ones!

[Malifice]

Yes it says "unarmed" but every single reference in the entire ability section refers to "unarmed strikes or monk weapons". There is absolutely no way you can tell me there is an interpetation of this section that says holding a sword in your hand makes your feet do less damage or inhibits your ability to use an elbow. That is absurd rationalization.

Thats what it says by strict RAW, but no DM would rule as such (all would rule it doesnt matter what you hold as long as you dont use it).

[RickAllison]

I'm sure a Minotaur monk could always have his horns removed with a saw.

Or even better, hire a Gnome to put screw mounts on his horns stumps. That way he could take them on and off or put on new ones, shiny magical ones!

I thought that removing a minotaur's horns was a great source of shame for the stripped minotaur? I would hardly think they would submit to such a measure. Additionally, horns have a core of live bone. Cutting it off would be about like getting any other bone in your body cut in half: incredibly painful!

[NNescio]

I thought that removing a minotaur's horns was a great source of shame for the stripped minotaur? I would hardly think they would submit to such a measure. Additionally, horns have a core of live bone. Cutting it off would be about like getting any other bone in your body cut in half: incredibly painful!

No, no, you're looking at it backwards.

Minotaur loses his horns, then trains in solitude to overcome his 'disability' and accept a new philosophy/path of life, becoming a Monk!

Easy roleplaying fodder.

(And the scientist in me would like to point out that horns are made out of keratin, like fingernails and hair, not bone. The nerves do extend quite some way up though, so cutting it off would still hurt (unless you just remove the tip), but not as much as bone [which are surrounded by sensitive periosteum tissue].

And how many catgirls did I kill?

Nevermind, the core has some bone.)

[RickAllison]

No, no, you're looking at it backwards.

Minotaur loses his horns, then trains in solitude to overcome his 'disability' and accept a new philosophy/path of life, becoming a Monk!

Easy roleplaying fodder.

Yup, that would work. Even better, he turns his horns into the tools of his new path, into a maduvu:

http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_images/904/373904_110408105746_fakir_a.JPG

EDIT: I didn't say the horns were bone, I said they had a bone core. Much like our limbs are bone core surrounded by muscle, flesh, ligaments, and skin, horns are formed from a bone core which adds proteins and keratin to build it up. If it was cut high enough, it should be fine. But a lower cut that hit the bone core would be excruciatingly painful.

[Theodoxus]

So, simply having horns is the same as wielding them? There's no way I'd ever rule that way. Then again, I don't have minotaurs available as a PC race, so it's pretty moot.

[Battlebooze]

Yup, that would work. Even better, he turns his horns into the tools of his new path, into a maduvu:

http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_images/904/373904_110408105746_fakir_a.JPG

EDIT: I didn't say the horns were bone, I said they had a bone core. Much like our limbs are bone core surrounded by muscle, flesh, ligaments, and skin, horns are formed from a bone core which adds proteins and keratin to build it up. If it was cut high enough, it should be fine. But a lower cut that hit the bone core would be excruciatingly painful.

That looks like a monk weapon.

We already know a Minotaur can't use his horns with his martial arts! Trying this might make the 5e universe explode!

The idea of a hornless dishonored monk Minataur? AWESOME

[NNescio]

So, simply having horns is the same as wielding them? There's no way I'd ever rule that way. Then again, I don't have minotaurs available as a PC race, so it's pretty moot.

From the Unearthed Arcana entry on Minotaurs.


Horns
You are never unarmed. You are proficient with your horns, which are a melee weapon that deals 1d10 piercing damage. Your horns grant you advantage on all checks made to shove a creature, but not to avoid being shoved yourself.

Doesn't matter how you rule whether having horns is the same as wielding them, they're explicitly considered "never unarmed", horns are not considered Monk weapons, and hence per RAW Minotaurs cannot benefit from Martial Arts.

...which is a mean gotcha move to pull on an unaware player, RAW or not. But ruling around this is a houserule regardless, and must be acknowledged such.

The sensible way is, as I mentioned, to point out this discrepancy to the Minotaur Monk player, and then houserule to let him use Martial Arts if being a Minotaur Monk is important to his character concept, with full table knowledge and approval. Make it clear to every player that this is a houserule.

Seriously, there's no need to twist RAW or ignore RAW to bend the game into what you think it should or should not be. Houserule it, acknowledge it is a houserule, and be clear and upfront to your players (and allow them to respec their characters if the houserule adversely impacts their characters). Done.

[RickAllison]

That looks like a monk weapon.

We already know a Minotaur can't use his horns with his martial arts! Trying this might make the 5e universe explode!

The idea of a hornless dishonored monk Minataur? AWESOME

They are also called fakir's horns (which is rather a misnomer; they are Indian in origin long before the introduction of Islam to that region, and fakirs are primarily a Muslim-equivalent to monks, though more independent). A short blurb from the ever-reliable Wikipedia on their use:


The maru is a primarily defensive weapon favouring a low stance, in which the wielder strives to stay lower than the opponent thereby reducing any openings to the body's vital points.[1] Typically, the maru-wielder will block or parry attacks before countering with a thrust, choke, lock or disarm. Offensively the maru is treated similarly to a dagger, used for stabbing.

Okay, so a Strength-based Minotaur Monk actually sounds perfect for this. I suggest talking to the DM to allow for Strength to replace Dexterity for monk stuff while being prevented from using it with Rage or any other abusable possibilities (say that learning to harness your anger into a precision martial art limits your ability to unleash it in the barbarian's burst. Thus, using Rage prevents you from using your monk abilities reliant on Strength). The skill is present in the extremely low stance, the blocking and parrying seems like a great use of the warrior's power rather than dodging, and then he counters with those fun things.

[Malifice]

...which is a mean gotcha move to pull on an unaware player, RAW or not. But ruling around this is a houserule regardless, and must be acknowledged such.

Its a ruling, not a houserule. Its a valid interpretation of the RAW that simply having horns on your head doesnt count as being 'armed with a weapon'.

[NNescio]

Its a ruling, not a houserule. Its a valid interpretation of the RAW that simply having horns on your head doesnt count as being 'armed with a weapon'.

RAW says "never unarmed". Not much way to interpret around that. Law of noncontradiction, you can't be both unarmed and "never unarmed" (A and not A).

--

Now, going back to the topic at hand, let's discuss about some potential combos with the Minotaur's Horns and forget about the digression with the Monk. Depending on how the DM interprets "moves out of your reach" (whether moving out of reach of any one your weapons count, or your maximum reach with all weapons), the horns may potentially give you two spots where you can trigger OA, one when an enemy moves out of 5ft, and another at 10ft (assuming you're wielding a reach weapon). This can cover one of the weaknesses of a reach-weapon build (an enemy ranged attacker can just move out of 5ft range into 10ft and shoot you without disadvantage), which has some potential, even if Polearm Master's OA only works with the polearm (as per RAI, but not RAW. Crawford pretty much acknowledges both when he used the word "The intent is that...", normally he just gives the RAW answer without careful wording like that), and without Tunnel Fighter on the table.

That said, if the DM does interpret reach so, I believe you can OA anyway with an unarmed strike (and all PCs are proficient with unarmed strikes, as per the PHB errata) anyway for 1 + Str Mod damage, so it's not too much of an extra deterrent compared to the base option.

[Sneak Dog]

It's the only way to get a damage die higher than 1d8 while unmounted (lance) with a one-handed weapon. Horn and shield build while keeping a hand free too.

[R.Shackleford]

I'm sure a Minotaur monk could always have his horns removed with a saw.

Or even better, hire a Gnome to put screw mounts on his horns stumps. That way he could take them on and off or put on new ones, shiny magical ones!

Nope, some guys tried that, only worked on the lower horn.

[Addaran]

RAW says "never unarmed". Not much way to interpret around that. Law of noncontradiction, you can't be both unarmed and "never unarmed" (A and not A).


One thing to keep in mind is that UA isn't official/ready. Since it screw minotaur monks, the Horn could be reworded to fix the problem.

Instead of: You are never unarmed.

You are never unarmed if it would be disadvantageous.
You are considered armed, if it would benefits you.
etc.

So yeah, pure RAW says it doesn't work, but i highly doubt it's intended.

[Shaofoo]

Or a greatsword and do 2d6, so OP!

I always find it funny that people think the least optimal thing in the game is the most OP. It is so easy to negate direct melee weapon damage that it isn't funny.

Really, over here people are so gung ho about potential DPR with GWM and PAM that I would've thought that apparently melee is the end all be all the way they treat the feats as broken, no sarcasm here.

[R.Shackleford]

Really, over here people are so gung ho about potential DPR with GWM and PAM that I would've thought that apparently melee is the end all be all the way they treat the feats as broken, no sarcasm here.

The same issue was part of 3e, people see numbers and think "omg so powerful" and don't stop to think about anything outside those numbers.

DPR is a whiteroom metric.

[8wGremlin]

Could a bladelock's pact weapon be Minotaur horns, they are counted as melee weapons?

[Theodoxus]

Horsepucky. You're using a word 'unarmed' to mean something here that it simply can't. Are the minotaurs literally taking their horns off their heads and holding them in their arms? No? then if they aren't holding a weapon in their arms, they are unarmed for the purposes of martial arts. It's not my fault whoever wrote that crappy UA decided to say something as asinine as 'unarmed' when it's obviously 'unheaded'.

Having horns on your head should in no way distract from your ability to throw a kick or elbow jab, than wearing a viking horned helmet.

It's a error in common English, not some douchy anti-Monk sentiment. I'm the last to tell you to think logically in a magical elf manbull game, but in this instance, you're just wrong.

[Battlebooze]

Another thing, technically, all Minotaur's wear 0 Ac leather armor. So unless they skin themselves, they can't use unarmored defense.

~snicker~

[RickAllison]

Another thing, technically, all Minotaur's wear 0 Ac leather armor. So unless they skin themselves, they can't use unarmored defense.

~snicker~

Tmave the tanky wizard accepts your wager! Let the skinning begin!!!

[KorvinStarmast]

But ruling around this is a houserule regardless, and must be acknowledged such.
Not so much. UA is not official rules, it is by its nature house rules, so everything to do with it isn't RAW. (By strict definition of what RAW is, all of which UA isn't.).


The sensible way is, as I mentioned, to point out this discrepancy to the Minotaur Monk player, and then houserule to let him use Martial Arts if being a Minotaur Monk is important to his character concept, with full table knowledge and approval. Just make it your ruling once you've gone through that, since using UA is a houserule to start with. :smallwink:

I agree with your idea on getting the whole table involved in the buy in. Good point.

@battlebooze ... laughed, we did. :smallbiggrin:

[Coffee_Dragon]

Tmave the tanky wizard accepts your wager! Let the skinning begin!!!

"You skinned yourself. Why did you skin yourself."

"Because. They can't grapple me if I'm slick with blood."

[RickAllison]

"You skinned yourself. Why did you skin yourself."

"Because. They can't grapple me if I'm slick with blood."

The logic is foolproof!! Plus with 18 Con, I think he survives the bleeding and then appears as an envoy of death even moreso than normal!

Of course, he doesn't need any more Charisma penalties than normal. Just as rolling gifted him with amazing Con and Int, as well as great Str, Dex, and Wis, his curse comes when his Charisma is actually lower than possible with point buy...

[NNescio]

The logic is foolproof!! Plus with 18 Con, I think he survives the bleeding and then appears as an envoy of death even moreso than normal!

Of course, he doesn't need any more Charisma penalties than normal. Just as rolling gifted him with amazing Con and Int, as well as great Str, Dex, and Wis, his curse comes when his Charisma is actually lower than possible with point buy...

"I rolled a 3."

[RickAllison]

"I rolled a 3."

It's not quite that bad, but it is a 5...