I was wondering since the minotaur horns can be used for unarmed strikes, would this be upgraded to a d8 if I had nothing in my hands ? Trying to build a rune knight minotaur and thought that would be a cool upgrade from a regular d6 of damage?
I would rule yes. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons and vice versa. But the race description is clear they can count as both natural weapons AND unarmed strikes, which differentiates them from normal natural weapons. They give an example of 1d6+strength, but later they clarify that the only real advantage is converting blunt to piercing.
So if you have something that allows you to upgrade 1d6 unarmed strikes to 1d8 (such as the Unarmed Fighting Weapon Fighting Style, or being an 11th level monk), then I would allow it to work.
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren’t wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.
Nothing in your hands means you are good to go with your horns.
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren’t wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.
Nothing in your hands means you are good to go with your horns.
Something that someone pointed out when someone had a similar question about Lizardfolk bite attacks... the restriction is only that you can't be carrying a shield or weapon in your hands... you can still freely use your hands to carry other things and still get the benefit.
In my opinion the horns don't interact with the Fighting Style. The horns specifically replace the bludgeoning damage your unarmed strikes do.
That said as a DM if a player is willing to forego much better Fighting Style options to have slightly better horn attacks I'd just let them have the d8 piercing damage.
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren’t wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.
Nothing in your hands means you are good to go with your horns.
I disagree. They're always good to go when attacking with their horns, regardless of whether they're holding on to something or not. The issue is the damage die.
Unarmed Strikes are, normally, 1 + Strength modifier bludgeoning damage. The minotaur's horns are a natural weapon that deals 1d6 + Strength modifier piercing damage. But the feat works differently. It sets the character's Unarmed Strike to 1d6 + Strength modifier in bludgeoning damage, or 1d8 if the right conditions are met. To put it another way, a 1st-level minotaur monk could perform an Unarmed strike with their Horns (1d6 + their Dexterity modifier piercing damage) or with any other part of their body (1d4 + Dexterity modifier bludgeoning damage).
TL;DR The size of the die determines which damage type you're trying to use.
By the rules, they cannot be holding a weapon or a shield in their hands. I can see letting it slide since it's horns and all and what you are holding in your hands has no effect on how well you can gore someone, but keep in mind they could still be benefiting from a +2 benefit to AC which is clearly not the intent of the unarmed fighting style.
Somehow the question of "does an unarmed strike gain benefits from unarmed fighting style?" got confusing answers.
Yes. The minotaur's horn attack benefits from unarmed fighting style and/or monk martial arts. The damage type is always piercing (non-horn attacks are still bludgeoning) and all requirements of features and traits must be met to apply.
Somehow the question of "does an unarmed strike gain benefits from unarmed fighting style?" got confusing answers.
Yes. The minotaur's horn attack benefits from unarmed fighting style and/or monk martial arts. The damage type is always piercing (non-horn attacks are still bludgeoning) and all requirements of features and traits must be met to apply.
The issue seems to be coming from multiple possible sources for unarmed strikes. The horns have their own description. The feat has another. And they do not appear to be compatible in any way. Both work independently.
By the rules, they cannot be holding a weapon or a shield in their hands. I can see letting it slide since it's horns and all and what you are holding in your hands has no effect on how well you can gore someone, but keep in mind they could still be benefiting from a +2 benefit to AC which is clearly not the intent of the unarmed fighting style.
If you're referring to the 1d8 damage, yes. Just for clarity in the jumbled mess that this thread has turned into, there is nothing stopping you from taking unarmed strikes with your hands full: they will just never be 1d8.
The true benefit is going to be the damage type change in this case, since there is no difference between a 1d6 bludgeoning headbutt and a 1d6 piercing gore or bite damage-wise.
Somehow the question of "does an unarmed strike gain benefits from unarmed fighting style?" got confusing answers.
Yes. The minotaur's horn attack benefits from unarmed fighting style and/or monk martial arts. The damage type is always piercing (non-horn attacks are still bludgeoning) and all requirements of features and traits must be met to apply.
The issue seems to be coming from multiple possible sources for unarmed strikes. The horns have their own description. The feat has another. And they do not appear to be compatible in any way. Both work independently.
It does get messy in the wording, and it could feasibly be ruled that you can't get 1d8 gore attacks due to the natural weapon description being a replacement, but it really does depend on DM. RAW can be one thing, and RAI or RAF can be something else entirely. If you think it's more fun for your minotaur player to deal less damage when they put away their weapons, paw at the ground, then gore someone than it would be if they did the same and just headbutt someone or give them a punch, then go for it, however results will be mixed. Same could be said on the basis of RAI instead of RAF if it makes sense that a minotaur's horns are less lethal than its skull and if it is the intent of the developers for a minotaur's horns to be the less lethal option in terms of "ways to hurt people with my head".
By the rules, they cannot be holding a weapon or a shield in their hands. I can see letting it slide since it's horns and all and what you are holding in your hands has no effect on how well you can gore someone, but keep in mind they could still be benefiting from a +2 benefit to AC which is clearly not the intent of the unarmed fighting style.
If you're referring to the 1d8 damage, yes. Just for clarity in the jumbled mess that this thread has turned into, there is nothing stopping you from taking unarmed strikes with your hands full: they will just never be 1d8.
The true benefit is going to be the damage type change in this case, since there is no difference between a 1d6 bludgeoning headbutt and a 1d6 piercing gore or bite damage-wise.
I am referring specifically to the circumstances described in the thread title. Sure you can take unarmed strikes with your hands full, but the unarmed fighting style specifically prohibits weapons and a shield in its description. Weapons seem irrelevant since you're attacking with the horns (although I can think of an edge case where the benefit from a magic weapon might also apply to other attacks), but a shield is clearly not intended to be of benefit someone using this fighting style.
By the rules, they cannot be holding a weapon or a shield in their hands. I can see letting it slide since it's horns and all and what you are holding in your hands has no effect on how well you can gore someone, but keep in mind they could still be benefiting from a +2 benefit to AC which is clearly not the intent of the unarmed fighting style.
If you're referring to the 1d8 damage, yes. Just for clarity in the jumbled mess that this thread has turned into, there is nothing stopping you from taking unarmed strikes with your hands full: they will just never be 1d8.
The true benefit is going to be the damage type change in this case, since there is no difference between a 1d6 bludgeoning headbutt and a 1d6 piercing gore or bite damage-wise.
I am referring specifically to the circumstances described in the thread title. Sure you can take unarmed strikes with your hands full, but the unarmed fighting style specifically prohibits weapons and a shield in its description. Weapons seem irrelevant since you're attacking with the horns (although I can think of an edge case where the benefit from a magic weapon might also apply to other attacks), but a shield is clearly not intended to be of benefit someone using this fighting style.
Aye, and I specifically mentioned the free hands thing in the "should we deal with this in a RAW or RAI/RAF context?", part of my post.
"It does get messy in the wording, and it could feasibly be ruled that you can't get 1d8 gore attacks due to the natural weapon description being a replacement, but it really does depend on DM. RAW can be one thing, and RAI or RAF can be something else entirely. If you think it's more fun for your minotaur player to deal less damage when they put away their weapons, paw at the ground, then gore someone than it would be if they did the same and just headbutt someone or give them a punch, then go for it, however results will be mixed. Same could be said on the basis of RAI instead of RAF if it makes sense that a minotaur's horns are less lethal than its skull and if it is the intent of the developers for a minotaur's horns to be the less lethal option in terms of "ways to hurt people with my head"."
It's a neat idea but you'd need to have a pretty good benefit from those empty hands for it to be worth it. Not sure being a walking potion bandolier would be enough. I guess you could grapple two guys and still be able to headbutt them?
It's a neat idea but you'd need to have a pretty good benefit from those empty hands for it to be worth it. Not sure being a walking potion bandolier would be enough. I guess you could grapple two guys and still be able to headbutt them?
Yeah, I think the general idea of the empty-hands 1d8 is grab onto them and beat the heck out of them. If you're running a brawler you're probably proficient in athletics anyway. Lizardfolk and minotaur probably weren't made with "I hold two people and bite/gore both of them" interactions in mind, probably moreso, "I have my hands full, but I'm still very much armed", but that's how the interaction here works out anyway.
I was wondering since the minotaur horns can be used for unarmed strikes, would this be upgraded to a d8 if I had nothing in my hands ? Trying to build a rune knight minotaur and thought that would be a cool upgrade from a regular d6 of damage?
I would rule yes. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons and vice versa. But the race description is clear they can count as both natural weapons AND unarmed strikes, which differentiates them from normal natural weapons. They give an example of 1d6+strength, but later they clarify that the only real advantage is converting blunt to piercing.
So if you have something that allows you to upgrade 1d6 unarmed strikes to 1d8 (such as the Unarmed Fighting Weapon Fighting Style, or being an 11th level monk), then I would allow it to work.
Nothing in your hands means you are good to go with your horns.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Something that someone pointed out when someone had a similar question about Lizardfolk bite attacks... the restriction is only that you can't be carrying a shield or weapon in your hands... you can still freely use your hands to carry other things and still get the benefit.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Thanks. When I said "nothing" I meant a shield or weapons as specified in the feature. I should have been more specific.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
In my opinion the horns don't interact with the Fighting Style. The horns specifically replace the bludgeoning damage your unarmed strikes do.
That said as a DM if a player is willing to forego much better Fighting Style options to have slightly better horn attacks I'd just let them have the d8 piercing damage.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I disagree. They're always good to go when attacking with their horns, regardless of whether they're holding on to something or not. The issue is the damage die.
Unarmed Strikes are, normally, 1 + Strength modifier bludgeoning damage. The minotaur's horns are a natural weapon that deals 1d6 + Strength modifier piercing damage. But the feat works differently. It sets the character's Unarmed Strike to 1d6 + Strength modifier in bludgeoning damage, or 1d8 if the right conditions are met. To put it another way, a 1st-level minotaur monk could perform an Unarmed strike with their Horns (1d6 + their Dexterity modifier piercing damage) or with any other part of their body (1d4 + Dexterity modifier bludgeoning damage).
TL;DR
The size of the die determines which damage type you're trying to use.
By the rules, they cannot be holding a weapon or a shield in their hands. I can see letting it slide since it's horns and all and what you are holding in your hands has no effect on how well you can gore someone, but keep in mind they could still be benefiting from a +2 benefit to AC which is clearly not the intent of the unarmed fighting style.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Somehow the question of "does an unarmed strike gain benefits from unarmed fighting style?" got confusing answers.
Yes. The minotaur's horn attack benefits from unarmed fighting style and/or monk martial arts. The damage type is always piercing (non-horn attacks are still bludgeoning) and all requirements of features and traits must be met to apply.
The issue seems to be coming from multiple possible sources for unarmed strikes. The horns have their own description. The feat has another. And they do not appear to be compatible in any way. Both work independently.
If you're referring to the 1d8 damage, yes. Just for clarity in the jumbled mess that this thread has turned into, there is nothing stopping you from taking unarmed strikes with your hands full: they will just never be 1d8.
The true benefit is going to be the damage type change in this case, since there is no difference between a 1d6 bludgeoning headbutt and a 1d6 piercing gore or bite damage-wise.
It does get messy in the wording, and it could feasibly be ruled that you can't get 1d8 gore attacks due to the natural weapon description being a replacement, but it really does depend on DM. RAW can be one thing, and RAI or RAF can be something else entirely. If you think it's more fun for your minotaur player to deal less damage when they put away their weapons, paw at the ground, then gore someone than it would be if they did the same and just headbutt someone or give them a punch, then go for it, however results will be mixed. Same could be said on the basis of RAI instead of RAF if it makes sense that a minotaur's horns are less lethal than its skull and if it is the intent of the developers for a minotaur's horns to be the less lethal option in terms of "ways to hurt people with my head".
I am referring specifically to the circumstances described in the thread title. Sure you can take unarmed strikes with your hands full, but the unarmed fighting style specifically prohibits weapons and a shield in its description. Weapons seem irrelevant since you're attacking with the horns (although I can think of an edge case where the benefit from a magic weapon might also apply to other attacks), but a shield is clearly not intended to be of benefit someone using this fighting style.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Aye, and I specifically mentioned the free hands thing in the "should we deal with this in a RAW or RAI/RAF context?", part of my post.
I apologize if I inadvertently gave you the impression that anything I said before post #14 was directed toward you rather than the original poster.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's a neat idea but you'd need to have a pretty good benefit from those empty hands for it to be worth it. Not sure being a walking potion bandolier would be enough. I guess you could grapple two guys and still be able to headbutt them?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yeah, I think the general idea of the empty-hands 1d8 is grab onto them and beat the heck out of them. If you're running a brawler you're probably proficient in athletics anyway. Lizardfolk and minotaur probably weren't made with "I hold two people and bite/gore both of them" interactions in mind, probably moreso, "I have my hands full, but I'm still very much armed", but that's how the interaction here works out anyway.