-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Quickstart rules from D&DExp
- Thread starter catsclaw227
- Start date
kenmarable
Hero
Just in case Steve doesn't check back, unless things have changed, Greg Dent (one of the original designers of Oathbound) got the setting and Steve got everything else Oathbound. Greg was talking about plenty of plans he had for bringing the setting back, but nothing ever happened, and I haven't heard back from him when I've asked him recently.catsclaw227 said:
I'd love for Oathbound to make a return as well (both as a gamer and as a writer). If Steve could get control of it (and he wanted it, campaign settings can be hit and miss business-wise), I know he'd do an awesome job of it. But until Greg speaks up, as far as I know, it's out of Steve's hands.
I thought that was kinda lame, too, but according to that 1-sheet, it sounds like there are a variety of "opportunity actions" and opportunity attacks are just one of them. In that case, it makes sense to flip the verbiage.Andor said:What, exactly, is gained by chaning the terminology from 'attack of opportunity' to 'opportunity attack'? Was the correct grammar confusing people?
In my own groups over these years, I'd say the name was 0% of the confusion and negative responses. It was more the wide variety of actions that could trigger them, the equally wide variety of ways of doing said actions in a way that wouldn't trigger them, realizing that without tumbling or teleporting, AoOs pretty much locked you into combat until death (hp are low and want to turn and run? Well, expect to get a whole set of even more attacks than you would have otherwise guaranteeing your death even sooner), and such. Of course, my groups didn't complain much about AoOs. They just sort of tended to become something easier to ignore than keep track of.whydirt said:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I love it.
I don't feel they dumbed things down. This is supposed to be a one-sheet quickstart guide. The elegance of being able to fit complex concepts into short and simply worded sentences is something I can appreciate. For example, Opportunity Attack IS superior to Attack of Opportunity (OA is more active voice, and AOO is more passive voice - Active voice is a superior and more compelling writing choice).
Not having reach apply to most OA's makes sense to me - polearm's are not reactionary weapons in the same way that shortswords are. It's much easier to attack with a polearm that you moved over to the target that you are facing, than it is to reposition the polearm to attack in reaction to the target leaving the area you are facing. A shortsword is a lot more maneuverable on that level.
Condition durations make a LOT more sense to me. I never understood the idea that, if you are paralyzed for example, you might have no effects at all from it because of your ability to resist those things, but if you don't initially resist it then it effects you for a fixed period of time as if the individual it's effecting has no influence on the ability to shrug it off. Having the player actively attempt to fight off a condition, and putting the ending of the condition in the hands of the person who has the condition, makes more sense to me, and seems like a lot more fun.
As for the comment about running not being useful - I disagree. I anticipate doing that often, particular when using an action point for an extra move action to run. If you can get enough distance between you and your foes, then the vulnerability to attacks from running will be well worth it. 2 squares can be all the difference between taking a massive melee attack from an Ogre, and being just outside it's attack reach.
I don't feel they dumbed things down. This is supposed to be a one-sheet quickstart guide. The elegance of being able to fit complex concepts into short and simply worded sentences is something I can appreciate. For example, Opportunity Attack IS superior to Attack of Opportunity (OA is more active voice, and AOO is more passive voice - Active voice is a superior and more compelling writing choice).
Not having reach apply to most OA's makes sense to me - polearm's are not reactionary weapons in the same way that shortswords are. It's much easier to attack with a polearm that you moved over to the target that you are facing, than it is to reposition the polearm to attack in reaction to the target leaving the area you are facing. A shortsword is a lot more maneuverable on that level.
Condition durations make a LOT more sense to me. I never understood the idea that, if you are paralyzed for example, you might have no effects at all from it because of your ability to resist those things, but if you don't initially resist it then it effects you for a fixed period of time as if the individual it's effecting has no influence on the ability to shrug it off. Having the player actively attempt to fight off a condition, and putting the ending of the condition in the hands of the person who has the condition, makes more sense to me, and seems like a lot more fun.
As for the comment about running not being useful - I disagree. I anticipate doing that often, particular when using an action point for an extra move action to run. If you can get enough distance between you and your foes, then the vulnerability to attacks from running will be well worth it. 2 squares can be all the difference between taking a massive melee attack from an Ogre, and being just outside it's attack reach.
hafrogman
Adventurer
This one actually makes a lot of sense. I don't think anyone ever believed that a longspear was 10' (or more after you add in grip and counterweight length). But you could strike a foe 10' away, you take a step forward and lunge in the direction you want to attack.Voss said:
When you're on the defensive you stay more to the center of your square, and keep the weapon closer in because you won't know where you're attacking until you see the opportunity. Then it's just a quick jab as they close with you.
Wormwood said:
Sorry. I didn't realize the entire audience was 12 and completely unfamiliar with RPGs. The egregious use of air quotes and 'let us pause while we explain the obvious to you' is pretty sad.
Hafrogman- uh. 10' is a pretty reasonable length for a longspear and other pole arms. Even if its short and only 8' or 9' the abstraction of combat pretty much works for this. More significantly, this change entirely alters the nature of these weapons. Before they had a big defensive aspect- you had an attack of opportunity on people charging you (as well as the possibility of set defense). Now they are offensive weapons. Thats... conceptually strange, given their typical use.
Its even worse for 'standard' reach creatures like giants. Apparently their arms atrophy when it isn't their turn...
Last edited:
king_ghidorah
First Post
Well, the audience is a group of people not familiar with these rules, and who may be making assumptions about using other rules. So clarity is sort of important.
And since the audience can be a variety of ages, including age 12, clarity is also important.
So reaching all your audience is a bad thing because of what reason (other than aesthetic desire for more complex writing)?
And since the audience can be a variety of ages, including age 12, clarity is also important.
So reaching all your audience is a bad thing because of what reason (other than aesthetic desire for more complex writing)?
Voss said:
Knight Otu
First Post
If that were the audience, the primer would be woefully bad, especially as it does nothing to explain the concept of RPGs. Try it. Show the primer to a 12-year old who is completely unfamiliar with RPGs. They'll be no wiser than before about RPGs except maybe "those guys use weird phrases".Voss said:
Similar Threads
