|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:04AM
#1
|
|
|
Please tell me I got any of this wrong or missed something.
I am not wedded to marks and don't care if they go, but removing OAs really changes/complicates things. Namely, there is no battlefield control (outside of spell effects, i.e. Ray of Frost) and battlefield positioning is greatly devalued.
So, there is basically nothing to stop Team Monster from all moving to and attacking the easiest target (i.e. the Wizard). If the Wizard stays at range, since he has a lot of ranged attacks, the Monsters can simply chase him down. They might lost an attack to do this, but the rest of Team PC will also be forced to lose attacks to try and stop this.
I don't like the removal of OAs. At all.
Daren
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:09AM
#2
|
|
|
I don't like it either, but I think it has to do with offering the players the possibility to play without a battlemap or grid.
From a game theory point of view it is bad, because for the role of "defender" / "tank" to work, the heavily armored character needs some way to force the enemy to attack him.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:10AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2011
|
I am pretty sure OAs will make it in the more advanced combat modules. It's a good rule, just makes combat a wee bit more technical. I would also be surprised if marks weren't included in later documents as well. The playtest doc that we have now is just the baseline core combat. Simple and easy, no muss no fuss. Later on combat will got lots more technical, I'm sure. So be sure you continue to make your point that these need to be added when we get to that point.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:12AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
I don't think they have been "removed", I just think that they have not been put in yet. The design philosphy this time around is to make a very simple core ruleset and then have lots of optional plugins. We have the basic mechanics, but not the options yet. They wanted a combat systme that could be played without a map. For those who want things like a grid, marking, OA's, I am sure some version of that will be coming when optional rules start to come out. For now we have a very "classic" approach so that you don't really need a grid. Very tactical rules like OAs and marking probably shouldn't be core, because they really need a battlemap to work well.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:14AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
I agree, people have to calm down. Everything is going to be put in the game eventualy, as optional modules. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:17AM
#6
|
|
|
You don't need a map to have OAs. Just have a simple rule that if you move away from an adjacent enemy, you provoke an OA (i.e. a melee attack). Then we can debate how often someone can make an OA. Probably call it a reaction and limit it to once a round, but whatever. But the concept is simple and doesn't require a map at all.
I played some 3.5/LG without a map and OAs were a part of those games. No problem.
OAs seem even easier to have without a map then flanking, which could also be implemented without a map, but gets a little more complicated with large creatures, etc.
Daren
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:23AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
You don't need a map to have OAs. Just have a simple rule that if you move away from an adjacent enemy, you provoke an OA (i.e. a melee attack). Then we can debate how often someone can make an OA. Probably call it a reaction and limit it to once a round, but whatever. But the concept is simple and doesn't require a map at all.
I played some 3.5/LG without a map and OAs were a part of those games. No problem.
OAs seem even easier to have without a map then flanking, which could also be implemented without a map, but gets a little more complicated with large creatures, etc.
Daren
Again, MODULAR. The goal here is to let you build the version of DnD that you want to play. Not everyone likes OAs. When they first came out I found the confusing, slowing to the game, and a pain in the rear. By the time I got to 4th ed my position has softened and I used them, but not everyone likes them. The core rules are the most basic, you will be able to add the elements you want later. If you put them in core then you are telling everyone to use them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:25AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2011
|
I'm actually curious, how did you keep everyone from bumrushing the wizard before OAs?
... congratulations, Monkeygentleman.
You won the unwinnable.
| monkeygentleman, you are the worst thing to happen to the CharOp forums since Mearls took over WotC.
|
Spoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:27AM
#9
|
|
|
The letter from Mike Mearls that came with the download materials did mention the excising of rules or elements to see if those rules/elements are key components. The group I DMed last night played on a grid and I missed OAs greatly, though it was fun to just be able to mob players in smaller spaces without worrying about my kobolds getting cut down before making it to position. I get the feeling it will be included in future rule rollouts, but I may "houserule" it in for this current rule set.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:28AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
The core game has to be balanced before the mods thoguh, and without OA the weapon types are short on battlefield control. PArt of that is probably the incomplete nature of the packet, but it's something that needs to be fixed in the core rules.
|
|
|
