How did you avoid spamming attacks in 3e combat?

[Jhaelen]

But see, it wasn't over. Because our big guns fizzled, the BBEG wasn't even bloodied by the time were down to at-wills. The boss was in it until the end. The warlord got dropped. The fighter was hanging on by a thread. That would have left my warlock facing the guy alone.

It was actually up for grabs, with a few hits and misses determining the outcome. But it was monotonous attack-spamming all the same.

I think for elite and solo monsters having a single 'blooded' condition isn't sufficient. Having that 'turning-point' with standard monsters is fine, but if you double or quintuple a monster's hit points it becomes meaningless.

I think elite and solo monsters should have multiple 'bloodied' values (OR noticably fewer hit points). Whenever reaching a new stage of 'bloodied' they should recharge their encounter powers or gain the use of an entirely different power.
Take for example a dragon with 1000 hp. I think it should be able to use it's breath weapon at least five times (at 1000/800/600/400/200 hp), not just twice (at 1000/500 hp).

Some monsters already have the ability to recharge interesting powers either randomly or under certain conditions (that can potentially occur an unlimited number of times in a given encounter). I think these monsters are a lot more interesting to fight even if the fight takes a long time.

Similarly, player characters should get a chance to recharge encounter powers in long combats. I'm not sure if it would make sense to link recharging to hit points or use a mechanism similar to the rechargable monster powers. Maybe there should be some way to recharge them using a mechanism similar to the ones used in 3E's ToB to regain the use of maneuvers.

 

[Lacyon]

Actually... Exalted pulls this off pretty well with stunt bonuses, where how cool an action is, whether it interacts with the environment, how original it is, whether it makes everyone at the table go "DAMN!", etc. gives you bonuses to your action. As far as someone deciding what is or isn't cool... the DM already has to decide DC's and damage dice and whether you can try something at all anyway... doesn't seem all that different.. Or it could be a group decision thing.

Sure, these work. It's not substantially different from a DM deciding that you're cool improvised attack on the Dwarf Bolter targets his Ref instead of Fort, or gets a circumstance bonus of the recommended +2 (which is competitive with your proficiency bonus).

But the basic structure is the same - even in Exalted, you're going to want find a way to use the highest possible ability + attribute pool to make the roll. Doing anything else is at a "penalty" in comparison.

 

[el-remmen]

As someone who has figured the average combat in our campaigns is in the neighborhood of 12 to 13 rounds - I have found that so-called spamming has not been an issue at all - and in most of our combats (against multiple foes anyway) there is a fair amount of other options used, i.e. fighting defensively, aid another, jumping and climbing, balancing, bullrush and trip attacks, fleeing and re-grouping, etc. . .

I guess it is my style of play and my preference for environment and combat goals being a large amount of determining the tone of the combat.

Last session was 17 rounds of combat against raiding barbarians among the tightly packed buildings of a ramshackle town, a half the party fighting from horseback half the time, the other half using missile fire from a rear position - climbing on buildings, grappling a child away from one of the opponents, etc. . .

It was a hell of a lot of fun. . . It was also a helluva tough fight where 4 of the 6 PCs dropped to negative hps (the wizard dropped three times over the course of the two encounters - the previous session was 16 rounds of the party ambushing the arriving barbarians)

 

[Dragonblade]

I'm not a current 3e player, but I was for eight years. So I'll answer.

1. You are absolutely right that the dominant strategy for melee characters was to use feats to create a specialized attack, and then to spam that attack as much as possible.

2. But, combat was short, so the spamming wasn't as noticeable.

3. In that short combat, at least a few rounds were spent getting into position to spam your attack, or moving on to your next foe after spamming your last one.

4. If a combat lasts 5 rounds, and you charge in the first round, full attack in the second, full attack in the third, move and attack in the third (because your foe died), and full attack in the last, did you spam?

Of course, if combat lasts 7 rounds and you, in order, use Charge, Cleave, Crushing Blow, Reaping Strike, Passing Attack, Reaping Strike, Reaping Strike, did you spam? Maybe you did. I don't think so, but see point 6 for more on this.

5. Some people LIKE spamming attacks. Those that didn't played spellcasters.

6. There's a certain sort of person who gets their kicks from describing their attacks. So yes, theyr'e spamming the same thing over and over, but they're describing it differently each time.

In 4e, their attacks have names, and little italicized lines of flavor text, and a certain percentage of the combat-describers seriously believe, and repeatedly claim on this forum, that this kills the roleplay aspect of describing your attacks. They look at 3e with its bull rush and sunder and disarm and whirlwind attack and full attack and see a wealth of roleplay opportunity, and they look at 4e and proclaim that every Reaping Strike is exactly the same and that you're just spamming it like you are on a computer and repeatedly hitting the "Reaping Strike" button. The fact that an individual character has more viable attack options at level 1 than most non-spellcasters in 3e have at level 10 doesn't cross their minds, because, to them, that's just a slightly larger selection of buttons to push, and it can't compare with the infinite ways you can describe a full attack.

In a way, the vanilla, spammable characteristics of 3e non spellcaster combat is an advantage to them- since "full attack" is thematically a big fat nothing, its a canvas onto which they can project anything they like. They can't do this in 4e because their big empty canvas is covered up with a italicized line of text that says something like "You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy’s defenses."

This! EXACTLY! Cadfan, you nail it again.

 

[WayneLigon]

What I'm curious to know is, how did you avoid spamming attacks in 3e combat, especially if you were not a spellcaster of some sort? I know that theoretically, you could bull rush, disarm, trip, fight defensively, etc. but how varied were the PCs' combat actions in actual gameplay?

I've seen the various 'combat tricks' like that done very, very seldom - mainly because you need to blow a feat to not incur an attack of opportunity when using them. Usually it's 'move to engage - full-round attack until dead' unless there was some very specific reason not to.

We were doing a Pathfinder try-out a couple months ago. I performed the only Bull Rush ever seen in eight years.

I can't say I've ever seen Trip, Sunder, Disarm, or anyone fight defensively - the first three because again using them effectively means spending a precious Feat that can be better spent on Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Cleave, as a pathway to Improved Critical or somesuch feat, or a special racial/class feat.

I've also never seen anyone ever use Combat Reflexes save as a gateway to the later feats. During the times you might want to use that - at lower levels - you wind up not hitting. Not Hitting == Bad. Later on, a trade-off for more AC is basically worthless because it's so high already so why bother?

For spells, it's more variable but still the majority of the time the first spell used in a pure combat is the best, most damaging or least-resistable damage spell available, apply until dead. If we need to keep people alive for some reason, then the mages might start getting fancy with hold person or web or something like that. But usually not.

 

[pawsplay]

The difference between a non-caster and a caster in 3e was immense in their flexibility and general usefulness. A character gets one feat every three levels (more if you're a fighter), so even a 20th level fighter has 18 feats (the highest possible in game), and a 20th level barbarian has 7. In comparison, a cleric/wizard/druid has a few HUNDRED ways to branch out and customize by learning/using different spells. Its not even close- the non and semi-casting characters were second-class citizens in 3e in regards to their usefulness, customizibility, and worth, and it only got worse the higher level it got.

Saying there are hundreds of theoretical cleric or wizard builds is probably beside the point. There are not hundreds of meaningful variations, in the same way there are dozens of basic fighter variations. Furthermore, that hardly seems like an argument for 4e, which turns everyone into, basically, fighters in terms of customizability. On top of that, not everyone WANTS hundreds of options.

As for usefulness... not sure what to tell you. I've never seen a useless fighter in play.

Now I agree in theory that grappling an enemy spellcaster, or disarming an opponent, or bull rushing can be a worthwhile tactic. In fact, I even tried to get players to do those things during combats. However, unless the character were geared towards such a thing, those tactics were decidedly subpar and not likely to succeed.

I do not understand how someone could come to that conclusion. Any fighter or barbarian has a respectable grapple bonus, in fact, enough to take out virtually anything smaller than they are. Many special options start with a touch attack. Take, for instance, the fighter going after the enemy caster. The caster is probably not armed. If they are, the fighter probably isn't worried. If the fighter makes the touch attack, which they will, they can attempt to grapple, at which they will succeed.

For example, what fighter with iterative attacks would give up full attacking for a bull rush, when its more effective to just stand toe-to-toe and full attack the enemy.

A fighter whose opponent is standing on the edge of a pit full of lemures ravening for flesh.

Or try a disarm when it provokes an immediate opportunity attack, and if it fails the opponent can immediately try to disarm you without an AoO.

Someone fighting an opponent without Combat Reflexes. Someone using a two-handed flail. Someone wielding a whip. Someone facing an unarmed wizard holding a wand. Someone with more options than the single weapon they are holding.

It's not an attack for every scenario, but there are many situations where it totally makes sense.

And the rules for grappling were so screwy, most people I played with said "screw it, I just attack." Do you see what I'm getting at here? While these actions were available, the system itself was set up to discourage such actions, and encourage the full attack slugathon.

On the contrary, the designers of SW Saga Edition and D&D 4e have both said one of their goals was to add interesting options while making disarming and grappling the like less attractive. Grappling was specifically nerfed in SWSE just to keep people from doing it. Why would they do that if people weren't inclined to try?

This is one of the things I think 4e did right, even if I don't agree with how they parsed out the ability to use powers according to encounter/daily powers.

There are a lot of things it did right, but this is one I feel it did dead wrong. One of the things that makes it irredeemable in my eyes is taking away combat options. I cut my teeth on Red Box D&D and I was always grateful for any rules, however choppy, that would handle such things as disarming, grappling, and so forth. Just by making this one design choice, D&D put itself behind every other game that has something as minimal as a "come up with a reasonable difficulty modifier" rule to handle such things.

To me, the value of a roleplaying game is its ability to handle every conceivable situation. Games that do this well, I rate highly. Those that do it poorly, I demerit. And that is irrespective of whether the approach taken is complex or simple. 4e deliberately hems in some choices for game play reasons, which to me is the same as making it more a boardgame and less a robust RPG. It's the kind of thing that pushed me from AD&D right on to DC Heroes and GURPS and all the rest.

At least with Basic D&D, you could say, "Roll to hit at -4, and if you hit, they'll save vs. rods to avoid being disarmed" or whatever you wanted to do, and the only thing you had to balance it against were regular attacks, and maybe the Weapon Mastery rules, which were optional. With 4e, there is a whole subsystem devoted to special attacks, but unlike 3e or Hero System or virtually any other game, there is no underlying mechanic for how such things are done without a special ability. Hence, 4e is fundamentally incomplete. In my view, it would become a better game, instantly, if they put out a sixteen page pamphlet on Insider describing common combat options that can be doen without powers, balanced for the current version of the game.

Starting with "I attempt to disarm him" and discovering, "There is no rule for that," and having no place further to go is basically the same as saying, "D&D is now a board game, and that is not a delineated move."

 

[FireLance]

At least with Basic D&D, you could say, "Roll to hit at -4, and if you hit, they'll save vs. rods to avoid being disarmed" or whatever you wanted to do, and the only thing you had to balance it against were regular attacks, and maybe the Weapon Mastery rules, which were optional. With 4e, there is a whole subsystem devoted to special attacks, but unlike 3e or Hero System or virtually any other game, there is no underlying mechanic for how such things are done without a special ability. Hence, 4e is fundamentally incomplete. In my view, it would become a better game, instantly, if they put out a sixteen page pamphlet on Insider describing common combat options that can be doen without powers, balanced for the current version of the game.

Starting with "I attempt to disarm him" and discovering, "There is no rule for that," and having no place further to go is basically the same as saying, "D&D is now a board game, and that is not a delineated move."

I don't see how 4e is any more incomplete than Basic D&D. If you could improvise a disarm rule in Basic D&D, why stops you from doing the same in 4e?

As a DM, if one of my players wanted to attempt a disarm, I'd probably ask him to make a melee basic attack against the opponent's Reflex defense +6. If he succeeds, the opponent is disarmed and the weapon lands [W]-2* squares away (on a result of 0 or less, the weapon drops at the opponent's feet) in a random (1d8) direction. The opponent needs to spend a minor action to pick up the weapon, and may need to spend a move action and risk an opportunity attack to reach his weapon first.

And I did it without referring to page 42 of the DMG, too!

* EDIT: If I wanted to take weapon size and relative strength into account, I could say that the number of squares the weapon moves is equal to your basic attack damage - your opponent's basic attack damage (minimum 0).

 

[FireLance]

I do not understand how someone could come to that conclusion. Any fighter or barbarian has a respectable grapple bonus, in fact, enough to take out virtually anything smaller than they are. Many special options start with a touch attack. Take, for instance, the fighter going after the enemy caster. The caster is probably not armed. If they are, the fighter probably isn't worried. If the fighter makes the touch attack, which they will, they can attempt to grapple, at which they will succeed.

A fighter whose opponent is standing on the edge of a pit full of lemures ravening for flesh.

I think these examples highlight how essential the DM is in encouraging the players to use varied attacks. A DM who seldom puts pits or other interesting environmental features where the PCs are fighting discourages the use of bull rush. A DM who uses mostly Large or larger monsters (or spellcasters with freedom of movement) discourages the use of grapple. A DM who uses mostly opponents with natural weapons or magical abilities discourages the use of disarm.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't see how 4e is any more incomplete than Basic D&D. If you could improvise a disarm rule in Basic D&D, why stops you from doing the same in 4e?

Nothing will prevent me from doing it. However, improvising such a thing involves less on-the-spot game redesign in Basic D&D than it does 4e. With all the Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger exploits, your options are more hemmed in.

It's kind of the same complaint you could make about the tactical feat from 3.5 that involves fighting large creatures... it gives lots of neat options for attacking from below and climbing on and such. The problem is that 3.5 does not have a set of rules for attempting those things without such a feat, and further, all the rules about space and squeezing and AoOs and such hem in the opportunities to treat a very large creature more like terrain, or having grappling more a case of holding onto it rather than holding it in place.

 

[FireLance]

Nothing will prevent me from doing it. However, improvising such a thing involves less on-the-spot game redesign in Basic D&D than it does 4e. With all the Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger exploits, your options are more hemmed in.

I think I see your point. You need to consider what a trained character can do when deciding on the fly what an untrained character can do, and there are a lot of things to consider!