Exploiting a Minotaur's horns

[nickl_2000]

So, a Minotaur's horns do 1d10 damage, which is effectively better than an one handed weapon. That means as a PC, you can have a shield in one hand and another hand completely free. I'm trying to figure out how one could most effectively exploit this bonus for a character.

What could you do with that free hand other than cast spells without Warcaster?

[Unoriginal]

Hold an one-handed crossbow/a wand ?

[redsuede]

You can use the free hand to grapple creatures. I'm currently playing a melee-oriented Minotaur cleric right now, and I use this strategy on occasion. It's been nice to have a little bit of free crowd control, if for only one enemy at a time.

[Maxilian]

Well... you could use it with a shield and a 1-handed weapon, so you can use your horns as your main weapon and use the 1-handed as the off-hand weapon without having to stop using your shield.

[Thrasher92]

Have another shield! Take Shield Master!

I know it isn't in the rules but, 2 shields should be +2 AC each, so you should be able to have +4 to your AC.

With Shield Master this could help you with Dex Saves too!

At least, that's what I would try to do, if the Dungeon Master would allow it.

[gloryblaze]

Have another shield! Take Shield Master!

I know it isn't in the rules but, 2 shields should be +2 AC each, so you should be able to have +4 to your AC.

With Shield Master this could help you with Dex Saves too!

At least, that's what I would try to do, if the Dungeon Master would allow it.

PHB p144 specifies that you can only benefit from 1 shield at a time.

[Maxilian]

PHB p144 specifies that you can only benefit from 1 shield at a time.

When a PC ask for this, i will say ok, but it will only work with small shields (bucklers) and say that they give +1 to AC :P

[nickl_2000]

Well... you could use it with a shield and a 1-handed weapon, so you can use your horns as your main weapon and use the 1-handed as the off-hand weapon without having to stop using your shield.

You can't even so that, the phb states that when you make an attack with a light melee weapon, you get a second attack with a light melee weapon as a bonus action.

The horns are a natural weapon I believe, so I don't think they qualify. Or if they do, you at least need dual wielder.

[Maxilian]

You can't even so that, the phb states that when you make an attack with a light melee weapon, you get a second attack with a light melee weapon as a bonus action.

The horns are a natural weapon I believe, so I don't think they qualify. Or if they do, you at least need dual wielder.

They are not pointed out as natural weapon, just melee weapons.

Note: You are right though, you would need the dual wielder to use the horns for dual-wield.

[nickl_2000]

You are right, that is a little odd that they wouldn't call them natural weapons. Still better for his that they are melee weapons.

It is a rather terrifying image of a Minotaur charging into combat, goring with their horns and breaking bones with a warhammer while also wielding a shield.

[DivisibleByZero]

They are not weapons, just like a monk's unarmed attack is not a weapon.

[nickl_2000]

They are not weapons, just like a monk's unarmed attack is not a weapon.

This may be a typo and not RAI, but RAW from UA is that they are weapons


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.

[DivisibleByZero]

This may be a typo and not RAI, but RAW from UA is that they are weapons
RAW from UA doesn't exist. That's an oxymoron. Those are play test rules, not official rules. If it isn't official, it can't be RAW.
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.

But you should never, and I mean absolutely never, use the term RAW when discussing anything from UA. UA has no RAW because UA isn't official.

[8wGremlin]

RAW from UA doesn't exist. That's an oxymoron. Those are play test rules, not official rules. If it isn't official, it can't be RAW.
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.

But you should never, and I mean absolutely never, use the term RAW when discussing anything from UA. UA has no RAW because UA isn't official.

What?

It is a Rule that is Written (RAW).
It is a playtest rule, from Unearthed Arcana (UA)
But it is a Rule.

The fact that it isn't yet an officially published rule, has nothing to do with the Ruling of said rule.
So anyone can, and in fact should, discuss the RAW, and the RAI of said playtest rule to iron out any issues.

[Findulidas]

The most obvious exploit is to grapple one or two targets while still having that 1d10+strength damage. Its pretty damn good. You can also have +2 strength which fits a grappler. The rest of the features are kind of meh though. Unfortunately you explicitly cannot shove a creature prone with the horns.

[nickl_2000]

The most obvious exploit is to grapple one or two targets while still having that 1d10+strength damage. Its pretty damn good. You can also have +2 strength which fits a grappler. The rest of the features are kind of meh though. Unfortunately you explicitly cannot shove a creature prone with the horns.

Ya, it would be good to grapple with one hand, hold a shield with a second hand, and attack with the horns (though that would take some decent flexibility). Add in the grappler feat and you attacking with advantage for multiple possible attacks. It certainly could be a pretty big boon against a spellcaster

[DivisibleByZero]

What?

It is a Rule that is Written (RAW).
It is a playtest rule, from Unearthed Arcana (UA)
But it is a Rule.

The fact that it isn't yet an officially published rule, has nothing to do with the Ruling of said rule.
So anyone can, and in fact should, discuss the RAW, and the RAI of said playtest rule to iron out any issues.

Nope.
Unearthed Arcana is a collection of ideas, hastily penned, with almost no regard for proper wording from a mechanical perspective, which is hardly, if ever, edited or proofread in any way. It's a first draft of a concept.
It is absolutely not RAW. There is no RAW for UA. UA material consists of conceptual, non binding ideas. Not rules.

The Rules (of DnD) as Written include the PHB, the DMG, the MM, the SCAG, and any other officially released product containing rules.
Everything else is homebrew, and is not part of the RAW (the Rules of DnD as Written).
If it is not official, it is not, and has no, RAW.

[suplee215]

Shieldmaster grapple fighter is something I toyed with making. If UA is allowed, brawny feat makes it amazing. Just use bonus to shove down (with advantage), grapple them and gore 2-7 times depending on level and action surge.

[coredump]

Nope.
Unearthed Arcana is a collection of ideas, hastily penned, with almost no regard for proper wording from a mechanical perspective, which is hardly, if ever, edited or proofread in any way. It's a first draft of a concept.
It is absolutely not RAW. There is no RAW for UA. UA material consists of conceptual, non binding ideas. Not rules.

The Rules (of DnD) as Written include the PHB, the DMG, the MM, the SCAG, and any other officially released product containing rules.
Everything else is homebrew, and is not part of the RAW (the Rules of DnD as Written).
If it is not official, it is not, and has no, RAW.

You are being overly pedantic. By your reasoning this entire thread is non-sensical since Minotaur horns don't even exist in the 'real' rules.
Your statement that horns are not a weapon is non sensicsl, since horns don't even exist

To even have this discussion we have to assume that the Minotaur UA rules are at least legit enough to discuss...... you are willing to discuss them, but then want to ignore them when your claims are shown inaccurate.
You can't have it both ways.

[nickl_2000]

Shieldmaster grapple fighter is something I toyed with making. If UA is allowed, brawny feat makes it amazing. Just use bonus to shove down (with advantage), grapple them and gore 2-7 times depending on level and action surge.

Well considering that the Minotaur is from the UA waterborne, I think it's allowed :)

[DivisibleByZero]

You are being overly pedantic. By your reasoning this entire thread is non-sensical since Minotaur horns don't even exist in the 'real' rules.
Your statement that horns are not a weapon is non sensicsl, since horns don't even exist

To even have this discussion we have to assume that the Minotaur UA rules are at least legit enough to discuss...... you are willing to discuss them, but then want to ignore them when your claims are shown inaccurate.
You can't have it both ways.

We can discuss them all we want. We cannot invoke RAW, because there is no RAW regarding UA material.
Read the "This is playtest material" box included in every UA, and then try to tell me that it's RAW.

[suplee215]

Well considering that the Minotaur is from the UA waterborne, I think it's allowed :)

Yea but some people might just test the minataur without other UA goodies as it is hard to balance multiple in development things at once.

[suplee215]

We can discuss them all we want. We cannot invoke RAW, because there is no RAW regarding UA material.

We can invoke RAW if we accept the simple fact that the words on UA actually have meaning. You do not seem willing to do this as you attacked how valid and how much work is put into the wording of UA. But without accepting the wording, it all becomes "I don't think it should be a weapon and so it isn't". The wording on the UA clearly states the horns are a weapon, which I think was done to avoid abuse with monks and tavern brawler.

[DivisibleByZero]

We can invoke RAW if we accept the simple fact that the words on UA actually have meaning. You do not seem willing to do this

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.

[suplee215]

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.

In that case it is impossible to talk about them. We either accept that we are talking about the Minotaur as written in UA or we can only talk about homebrewing our own Minotaurs using this as a template. Your entire point is this article is pointless because it is play testing. The argument most people on this thread have is we cannot playtest it without accepting the words as mattering. You can argue the weapons should be unarmed strikes, but they are not and I think it is less due to sloppy writing and more to avoid monks.

[DivisibleByZero]

I never said that they should be unarmed strikes. I just said I guarantee that if and when it becomes official, they will not be weapons.

[suplee215]

I never said that they should be unarmed strikes. I just said I guarantee that if and when it becomes official, they will not be weapons.
If they are not weapons they will be unarmed strike. The only other possibility is improvised weapon as those are the only 3 things they have unless they make up a new term.

[DivisibleByZero]

If they are not weapons they will be unarmed strike. The only other possibility is improvised weapon as those are the only 3 things they have unless they make up a new term.

Claws aren't a weapon. Teeth aren't weapons. Neither are they unarmed strikes.
There isn't an exact specification for a natural weapon in 5e, but they aren't weapons and they aren't unarmed.
Except when they are, like the Tabaxi. If anything, the horns would be treated similarly, as this creates precedence. But that feeds right into my point. One UA says a natural weapon is a weapon. One official race within the RAW treats its natural weapon as an unarmed strike.

UA is not RAW, and if this ever becomes official, the horns will not be weapons.

[suplee215]

Claws aren't a weapon. Teeth aren't weapons. Neither are they unarmed strikes.
There isn't an exact specification for a natural weapon in 5e, but they aren't weapons and they aren't unarmed.
Except when they are, like the Tabaxi. If anything, the hotels would be treated similarly, as this creates precedence.

From Aarakocra in elemental evil "Talons. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes, which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit.". Lizardfolk and Tabaxi from Volo's guide also refer to your strikes with their bites or claws as "unarmed strikes". So yea, you're wrong with them not being unarmed strikes.

[DivisibleByZero]

From Aarakocra in elemental evil "Talons. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes, which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit.". Lizardfolk and Tabaxi from Volo's guide also refer to your strikes with their bites or claws as "unarmed strikes". So yea, you're wrong with them not being unarmed strikes.

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.

[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.