D&D 4E Do full attacks have no place in 4e?

[ChristopherA]

I think it is specifically a good thing for characters to have nothing to do with their move actions except move around. This really encourages them to move around a lot more. If a player can gain even a small attack advantage by not moving, he will likely feel compelled to stand still unless he can identify some very clear tactical reason to move. But if there is no advantage to be gained by standing still, then the player will feel free to drift around the battlefield to whatever position he fancies most. This encourages more movement - and the more movement, the better.

If the player chooses not to use the move action, it just goes unspent. No big deal. The character effectively decided to spend his move action staying right where he is, because that is where he decided he most wanted to be.


__________________
Come read my game design/analysis blog at: http://gamedesignfanatic.blogspot.com

 

[Eldorian]

This is a sorta house rules thread, with the original post being about house rules and a lot of replies being about what you can do to mimic a full round action using 4e powers, usually encounter powers that you cannot use repeatedly.

However, if you are interested in house rules, then here is a rule borrowed from the war games Warmachine and Hordes:

Create a power called "Aim" or something that is a move action at will that gives you a + to hit on your next attack this turn. For example, +1 or 2.

Then your fighter or whatever who doesn't need or perhaps want to move can gain an advantage for not moving. In the war game, this applies only to ranged attacks, but it could easily apply to melee in DnD.

 

[Eldorian]

I think it is specifically a good thing for characters to have nothing to do with their move actions except move around. This really encourages them to move around a lot more. If a player can gain even a small attack advantage by not moving, he will likely feel compelled to stand still unless he can identify some very clear tactical reason to move. But if there is no advantage to be gained by standing still, then the player will feel free to drift around the battlefield to whatever position he fancies most. This encourages more movement - and the more movement, the better.

If the player chooses not to use the move action, it just goes unspent. No big deal. The character effectively decided to spend his move action staying right where he is, because that is where he decided he most wanted to be.

Conversely, if a move action does nothing BUT move, then the players feel compelled to move when they have one, even if it's pointless. For example, in a game I'm playing, one of the players (who, incidentally, quit) was a fey pact warlock who insisted in teleporting every time his pact was triggered, no matter how pointless it was and how much time it took to make this move.

I think a balance between the desire to move and the desire to gain a benefit by not moving should be balanced. It gives more tactical options.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Full attacks are still pretty much in the game, as said. They're not as devastatingly more powerful, though. You need specific builds with specific powers, meaning you're missing out on other stuff. However, I accidentally cooked up a nasty barbarian recipe:

1 human barbarian
1 action surge feat
1 daily rage attack
1 spent action point
1 level 13 storm of blades for 5 freaking attacks
1 bloodclaw weapon that lets you take 4 damage every time you attack on your turn and add 12 to EACH damage roll
1 frenzy activation
1 swift charge activation
1 level 16 spur the cycle utility
1 rage strike

Which is 10x more powerful than any full attack ever hoped to become. The turn this took place on was clocked at 6.5 minutes.

 

[Flipguarder]

Thats not a full attack. Thats just piling near as much power into one turn as possible. Its not repeatable.

A full attack can be implemented every turn. And over shadow all other options at your disposal at the expense of variety of options.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Conversely, if a move action does nothing BUT move, then the players feel compelled to move when they have one, even if it's pointless. For example, in a game I'm playing, one of the players (who, incidentally, quit) was a fey pact warlock who insisted in teleporting every time his pact was triggered, no matter how pointless it was and how much time it took to make this move.

I think a balance between the desire to move and the desire to gain a benefit by not moving should be balanced. It gives more tactical options.

I'm sorry that the player quit and upset you, but I have a Fey Pact Warlock in my game who does pretty much the exact same thing (only not teleporting if it's actively going to get him into trouble), and he clearly enjoys it a great deal, and he's gotten himself into some tactically interesting situations doing so. Also, how could it possibly "take time" to resolve a teleport with a fixed range unless the player was completely mental? That's mind-boggling - it's pretty much the most simple move-type in 4E.

Anyway, I'm not really seeing any cogent argument in this thread that we should be giving mechanical benefits to people for not moving in all cases - by doing so you render "not moving" the default decision, and games WILL become more static - perhaps even more static than 3.XE. Who is going to shift into a tactically-superior position when they could get +2 to hit or whatever instead? Not many people.

Also, to people confusing Nova-type effects with Full Attacks, that's just weird. They're not remotely the same thing. Full Attacks are something you want to be doing every single round if possible - Novas can take a while (if the player is dawdling), but they typically occur once per fight (per player - but rarely will all the PCs do that), not every round.

 

[Reigan]

Full attack finished off 3.5 as far as I was concerned, its incredibly boring to use, far more powerful than any other choice available. Every combat was the same, charge, full attack, full attack, full attack, full attack, full attack...........

Anything that could move out of the way made you redundant (at will teleports), anything that couldn't - 2 round combats.

 

[Regicide]

Also, how could it possibly "take time" to resolve a teleport with a fixed range unless the player was completely mental? That's mind-boggling - it's pretty much the most simple move-type in 4E.

Normally it should take time to weigh the advantages of each possible position that can be moved to, if it doesn't, then the move is pretty darned pointless.

Anyway, I'm not really seeing any cogent argument in this thread that we should be giving mechanical benefits to people for not moving in all cases - by doing so you render "not moving" the default decision, and games WILL become more static - perhaps even more static than 3.XE. Who is going to shift into a tactically-superior position when they could get +2 to hit or whatever instead? Not many people.

Um. The biggest reasons for moving are a) to be able to hit, b) to get a +2 to hit from flank, and c) avoid damage. This is no different than 3E.

Full Attacks are something you want to be doing every single round if possible

Yes, my wizard full attacks every chance he gets. Very few character builds wanted to full attack, it pretty much was limited to classes with sneak attack since having more attacks greatly increased damage. Other classes could get by with power attack.

Full attacks in 3E are what you tried to avoid letting the monster do as a higher level monster doing a full attack could often kill a lot of characters.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

If the OP hasn't gone and looked at the Monk class, (s)he should do so. A unique move action combined with a standard actions has a 'full attack' feel to it. If you're going to do an 'Aim', the result shouldn't be any more than +1 since Combat Advantage is +2. You could also apply a +1 damage or something.

The issue here is that whatever bonus you apply for incorporating the move action has to be highly situationally useful. In what circumstance is it not to your advantage to move or your move action is wasted? I can think of three - defending a choke point, being surrounded or fighting a Solo (usually); in other words if moving doesn't put you any closer to an opponent other than the one(s) you threaten now.

Something that might work here would be 'defensive' fighting; you stop granting CA or do not provoke opportunity attacks at the cost of your move action. That's about the only reasonable thing I can think of.

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

This is a sorta house rules thread, with the original post being about house rules and a lot of replies being about what you can do to mimic a full round action using 4e powers, usually encounter powers that you cannot use repeatedly.

However, if you are interested in house rules, then here is a rule borrowed from the war games Warmachine and Hordes:

Create a power called "Aim" or something that is a move action at will that gives you a + to hit on your next attack this turn. For example, +1 or 2.

Then your fighter or whatever who doesn't need or perhaps want to move can gain an advantage for not moving. In the war game, this applies only to ranged attacks, but it could easily apply to melee in DnD.

+2 is too much, IMO. No need to get CA by moving if you get the same bonus by not moving. +1 doesn't seem too bad. I may give that a try.