Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6307814" data-attributes="member: 1465">You are right in fact, to tell the whole truth, I would have probably gone as far as not having OA at all in Basic <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> And that's what I suggested during the playtests, but OA are such a staple of the last 15 years that people aren't even thinking about removing them.But instead they probably should, in the basic game, because literally every casual gamer I've played with balked at OA rules in 3e. Keeping track of exactly how far you step from a foe (or far you move around it to avoid getting too close) is a level of details a lot of casual gamers aren't interested in. The explicit purpose (Mearls confessed it) of OA is to avoid running away from combat with no penalty, or moving past enemies to get the mcguffin at the back. Ad-hoc rules would serve the purpose better.Then for non-casual gamers i.e. gamers of the standard game, the current OA rules are fine. Alhough for my personal taste, they are still more fiddly than they need to be, as I mentioned previously. The problem is that in this (and a couple of other) instance, the designers haven't thought long enough about the possibility of decreasing the starting complexity even more. They just thought "this has been fine for all 3e and 4e players, it'll be fine for 5e players" and forgot that newcomers and casual players are supposed to set the requirements for the basic game.</blockquote>

Verification