I don't get the iterative/multiple attack hate. It never bothers me running the game, and players really seem to love it when they can pull off a wave of stabbiness.
Discussion on iterative attacks
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
I don't get the iterative/multiple attack hate. It never bothers me running the game, and players really seem to love it when they can pull off a wave of stabbiness.
Fifth Element
Legend
I think that's probably the key - when you can pull it off. With each subsequent attack being 25% less likely to hit, a wave tends to be rare.
The thing that bothers me the most about it is how it encourages standing in one spot and swinging away. I don't find that kind of fight terribly satisfying.
Bingo. "I full attack" is the most anti-fun statement I can imagine. Oh certainly, you fluff it up and describe your attack being cool and all that, but at the end of the day, your contribution is literally "I attack. Uh, more then once! That's it, though."
Edit: And to add to this, full attacking meant some weapons were completely useless. Like crossbows. Because bows could do a full attack and crossbows couldn't, crossbows were used as nothing more then "the weapon wizards use at level one," and that's really pathetic for a weapon. Or take characters with two weapons. High dexterity, dual blades, you'd envision them dancing around the enemy, twin blades flashing as they dodge and weave, right? Nope. Turns out they just stand there with the enemy and both of them just punch each other in the face like rock'em sock'em robots. Yawn. In fact, the lack of mobility was the biggest problem overall.
When your combat system degenerates into "I and the enemy stand there and hit each other until one of us dies," there's an issue.
Last edited:
As opposed to "I attack, and, uh, move over here!"?
I think people way oversell the "coolness factor" of 4E combat. IME it just didn't amount to much more than a shift here or there, no more than in 3E except there's a lot of forced 1 or 2 square movement which, again, doesn't amount to much "coolness".
Also, in 3.x it is plenty easy to discourage "standing there and swinging" -- because if you take a full attack, so can the monster, and chances are his hurt a lot more than yours.
Quite frankly, yes.
Sure it does. Pushing the enemy back, throwing him to the side, literally dodging and sidestepping attacks instead of just saying "I dodge," raking a blade across the baddies eyes to blind him. And that's not even touching the shifting or switching movement powers!
Can you tell my favorite 4e class is the monk, and that I loved Tome of Battle? ;p
That doesn't discourage it though, it just degenerates the battle into "I attack" "He attacks" "I attack" "He attacks" "The wizard is bored and casts Win The Battle."
Kaiyanwang
Adventurer
What do you mean for "full attack?"
Swing the greataxe 4 times? Tear an enem with two weapon and then stun a second with a kick? Disarm a neraby enemy, move of 5 feet, quickdraw a whip, and trip a distant enemy?
Put on the ground all enemies in reach? Pin three enemies on the wall with arrows? Kill a nearby enemy and trip a distan one quickdrawing bolas?
What is a full attack? Did you ever realized what a full attack can do?
Mobility IS a big deal, Cirno, and I agree with you on that point. But I find hilarious how people bring in full attacks as same-y maneuver.
I'm sorry, but combats can be more imaginative than you are trying to show, even without powers that precisely say what happens.
Swing the greataxe 4 times? Tear an enem with two weapon and then stun a second with a kick? Disarm a neraby enemy, move of 5 feet, quickdraw a whip, and trip a distant enemy?
Put on the ground all enemies in reach? Pin three enemies on the wall with arrows? Kill a nearby enemy and trip a distan one quickdrawing bolas?
What is a full attack? Did you ever realized what a full attack can do?
Mobility IS a big deal, Cirno, and I agree with you on that point. But I find hilarious how people bring in full attacks as same-y maneuver.
I'm sorry, but combats can be more imaginative than you are trying to show, even without powers that precisely say what happens.
Last edited:
Festivus
First Post
I think it depends a lot on if you are the guy rolling lots and lots of dice, or the guy who gets to roll once for spell penetration (and if lucky, rolling a few more dice perhaps) and then sit for 5 minutes again waiting for his next chance to roll a single die.
Rolling dice is FUN! I totally agree. Iterative attacks are cool and do oodles of damage. But let me tell you, it's only fun for the guy rolling oodles of dice.
Perhaps iterative spell castings? Something like Fireball, roll multiple attacks, one d20 for your 1st level version and (1d6) damage, again for 3rd, etc etc... that would make things more interesting to me anyhow.
Haha what.
First one: yep.
Second one: Nope. Can't stun with a kick unless you're a monk, and if you're using both weapons and an unarmed strike as a monk, you aren't stunning or "tearing" into anyone because all you're doing is missing.
Third one: Nope. Can't do a five foot step in the middle of a full attack, can't quickdraw during a full attack.
Fourth one: This is just the first one repeated :U
Fifth one: This is the first one yet again, only now you're using Ranged Pin instead of Attack.
Sixth: Nope. Can't quickdraw on a full attack.
All you've done is proven my point. The only thing a full attack does is attack x times.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
From the 3.5 SRD, Actions in Combat, Full Attack: "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks."
I dunno where you're getting this. Quick Draw is the way to throw more than two daggers in a round (for example). It's a free action, and the limits on free actions are pretty much left to the DM. I've certainly never known a DM who played that you couldn't Quick Draw during a full attack. I don't have a rules citation handy, but I know there are are several FAQ entries in which the ability to do so is simply assumed (because it's not prohibited anywhere).
I sorta waffle on the iterative attack thing. On the one hand, I like a lot of movement in combat, and if the high-BAB PC makes everybody wait while he rolls handfuls of dice, it really sucks. On the other hand, I like the idea of multiple attack rolls for highly skilled melee combatants.
I think my ideal would be allowing a Trailblazer-style iterative attack (two attacks, at a penalty, with the penalty lessening as the character gets more skilled) as a standard action, with the movement possible at any time relative to the attacks, including being split.
Fair enough. This has never really been a problem for me. My players will loot fallen enemies with obvious wealth or importance, though. For example, I think it would be reasonable to loot the goblins' shaman.
See my (2) entry in the post above. I struggled with this exact issues in 3.5, starting at about 8th level. 4E taught me how to get over it.
Sure, but that's just annoying in general. (Personally, I think preemptive Bluff and Diplomacy checks are far more annoying.) We have a woman in our group that has to be reminded literally every session to wait until the DM asks her to roll. Every session. For years now.
Last edited:
Kaiyanwang
Adventurer
You continue with your condiscendence, but you criticize a system you don't ever know.
An headbutt is an unarmed strike too. And stunning fist can be took by anyone with wis 13 and enough BAB.
And I meant use two attacks (main hand and off-hand) use two weapon rend, and then kick a second enemy to stun him.
You can do a step during a full attack. And if you couldn't quickdraw during a full attack, how could I build a thrower character? Take a look in FAQs, pag 36.
And no, is not the first repeated. Unless you think that if you swing a greataxe 4 times or make 4 trip attapts with a glaive at reach is the same move. be sincere: would it be the same move in 4th edition? And in 3rd, you can combine the attacks too. But i agree with you that full attacks make ou stuck in place and this, depending fro the DM gamestyle, can be annoying or plain suck.
Seriously, Cirno.. did you ever played a melee character in 3.5? or you never, ever tried because teh internet said that melee don't get nice things?
And, more important, man, try to be more polite. Even if comes out that I'm flat out wrong, you hehewats don't bring anything on the table. If I were in front of you, would you treat me in the same patronizing way?
Similar Threads
