D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
I suppose this may seem a little hypocritical, given that in the 3e boards, I was just criticizing a weakness of melee classes being that they were too dependent on the full attack option for the majority of their damage output, and that moving compromised their damage too much. In the same vein, I was also praising how ToB made melee viable by allowing "fighters" to move up to their speed and still be able to attack for comparable (relative to a caster) damage as a standard action.
But assuming you were capable of finding a means of moving as a swift action (say belt of battle, quicksilver motion maneuver, pounce etc), the full attack was still unparalleled in terms of how much damage it allowed you to pump out (barring certain obscene damage-generating combos).
Meanwhile, in 4e, I understand that all attacks are made standard actions because the designers wanted to emphasize mobility and the tactical nature of the game, to differentiate it sufficiently from 3e, where the characters mostly just parked themselves in 1 square and flailed away until one side was no more.
However, there may be times when a character has no/little reason or incentive to move. Say a monster who has been marked by a fighter and decides to attack him instead of risking an AoO by attempting to move. In that case, his move action is effectively wasted. So I am wondering if, in the interest of allowing it to make more efficient use of the action economy, that he be allowed to combine his move and standard to perform the equivalent of some sort of full round action/attack. Maybe it could allow for more attacks or deal more damage? Or allow it to augment its existing attacks in some manner? Say if you took a full round to "line up" your shot, it received some form of attack bonus?
This too would apply to the PCs, if they too deigned to move for whatever reason remains their own. Or it could result in some interesting combos, like the fighter relying on the wizard to push him via thunderwave so that he doesn't have to spend his move action, because he wants to save it for some full-round action.
Also note that while I do not mind 3e scenarios being raised as evidence to why this would be a good/bad idea, I honestly do not wish this to degenerate into some sort of edition war. I merely wish to see the pros or cons (I suspect it has more to do with this) of it.
Wotc has been sticking to standard action powers fastidiously up to now, and I am wondering if it intends to stay the course, or will it buck the trend some time in the future? Or has it already done so and I overlooked something?
I have to agree. I do not want to see full attacks come back. 4E can certianly become static, especially with a fighter in the midst of combat, but the options for movement and change are so so so much beter.
And don't forget that the move action can be used to shift.. and some attacks or things cost a minor action so you can drop the move to a minor and do two other actions..
Just curious, were there ever any times when you did not want/need to move in combat? Were there times when you moved just for the heck of it since you had a move action which you did not want to waste? Or did you all always manage to find some use for your move action, even if it meant converting into another swift action?
Only after playing 4E did I realize how bad Full Round attacks seem to hurt the flow of a game like this. While I only get to play 3.5 these days (my friends all hate 4E), I find the idea of playing melee characters pretty boring now that I know what they could be like.
Having said that, the whole idea of giving up almost all your turns options for more 'power' is a fine one and could easily find its place in 4E. Just don't make it as forced as it has been in prior editions else the game as a whole would suffer.
That was what got me thing - is it better that all attack powers remain standard actions so players will always have access to a move action, thus giving them more incentive to find some means of taking advantage of this mobility (since you have it, may as well try to make the best of it, rather than let it go wasted)?
The original idea was that the damage done by a full attack is only a little better than your standard action attack powers (how much or little more is to be decided later). The idea is less so to replace them and become a mainstay of combat (because the general consensus is that it makes combat too stale and static), but moreso of an attack of last resort for when you do not deem it necessary to move, or think you need that little extra boost to push the enemy over the edge (is that possible, given the sacks of hp monsters in 4e have?).
Or will this simply set a bad precedent that ends up doing more harm than good?
There are some powers in 4e that utilize move actions. The one I can think of off the top of my head is quicksilver stance from martial power, a high level daily that gives fighter a basic attack as a move action.
I think with powers you can introduce move action based offensives, but I wouldn't do it on a blanket level. I'm much happier they are introducing more powers that work off of charges.
Though I would like to see more encounter/daily powers that are more powerful at the cost of taking a full round to accomplish, full attacks were too powerful.
Rogues have one or two attacks that are a minor action (low slash, and something else).
With powers like Rain of Blows, Sweeping Blow, Come and Get it, etc. fighters can already get multiple attacks with just a standard action.
(And Rain of Blows can easily do 100+ damage around lvl 8-10 with an optimized fighter. And it can be re-used 2-5 times with various combinations of items and powers.)
Funny thing... my Wizard, by using two Daily powers, can get a "full attack" each round:
- Mord's Sword (sustain and attack Minor)
- Wizard's Fury (cast Magic Missile as a Minor action for the duration of the combat) - spend my Move action doing this
- Normal Standard action attack
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
First off, a response to the OP, but a bit off topic, ToB was a complete and total disaster for 3E. Many MANY utterly broken and unbalanced things that they've never bothered to go back and address. Also there was no attempt to integrate it with the existing 3E mechanics so your Crusader can happily toss heal spells around every single round of combat... in the middle of an anti-magic field. UUUUUGH. And don't get me started on martial scrolls. I'd let players use Night Sticks first.
Second, people complaining about the full attack action in 3E either stopped playing early or really have no ground to stand on. There are MANY options, either magic items with teleport, or... feats... those things fighters get lots of, like Slashing Flurry to get 2 attacks off a standard action, Leap Attack to add huge amounts of damage on a charge, or Quick Draw to pull out a bow and get a full attack with it.
For 4E there are a lot of classes that don't have much they can do with their move action other than to move. I doubt we'll see full round action, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see feats before too long that give players something to do with their move action if they don't have a pet or a sustainable power.
Full attacks were gone from D&D for all of about 3 months.
Then martial power came out.
Rangers got a boatload of minor actions attacks. Full attack: Minor: Ruffling sting, trade move for another minor: off-hand strike, standard: twin strike
Rogues got a few minor action attacks. (Low slash).
Fighters got quicksilver stance.
Warlords got a power that lets people make basic attacks as a minor action (and resourceful warlords give a massive attack and damage bonus with those attacks so everyone will: Minor: basic attack, trade move for a minor: basic attack; standard: basic attack).
When it's all said and done, 4th edition really is not much more mobile than 3rd edition combat was. In 3rd edition, characters would full attack and five foot step if there was any point to doing so. In 4th edition, characters locked in melee attack and shift if there is any point to doing so. In fact, the change that is most responsible for the increased mobility of 4e combats (such as it is) is the dramatic loosening of the charge rules. Move and then charge (not necessarily in a straight line) to the closest square (of which there are usually at least three in the non-euclidian 4e world) has essentially doubled the threat range of most melee characters. The ability to shift and then charge also allows melee characters to change opponents without provoking OAs.
First off, a response to the OP, but a bit off topic, ToB was a complete and total disaster for 3E. Many MANY utterly broken and unbalanced things that they've never bothered to go back and address.
I wasn't talking so much about the power level of ToB, but more of the features it introduced (namely the ability to simulate a full attack damagewise as a standard action, so you could effectively move and still "full-attack").
Plus, the ability to move and still full-attack remains fairly elusive, unless you dip 1 lv for barb (pounce variant), belt of battle (usable 3/day), quicksilver motion stance (available only to warblades and swordsages) etc. Yes, there were ways if you looked hard enough, but it wasn't a given.
So it seems that the posters here don't mind more swift action abilities. And I suppose they will have the initiative to build their characters to make efficient use of the action economy (ie: they should have some avenue to trade in their move action if it ever becomes unnecessary).
I guess the full attack should remain a relic of 3e.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
