How did you avoid spamming attacks in 3e combat?

[Mallus]

Why no accusations of spamming in 3e? Simple. You can only spam an attack if it has a fancy name. Thus attacks with pedestrian names --such as 'full attack'-- cannot be spammed.

Also, the "D&D is WoW" meme hadn't started yet.

(My perception of 3e is that most effective martial characters --which is to say the builds the system encouraged-- were built around spamming: a single, unbalanced shtick meant to be used over and over again, useful in many situations as possible so it can be performed almost without regard to situation or opponent)

 

[Runestar]

My warblade had adaptive style, which I typically use to swap in a custom set of maneuvers which I feel is best suited to the current scenario at hand. So my fights tend to have a little variety here and there, by virtue of the different maneuvers I ready.

 

[jasin]

(My perception of 3e is that most effective martial characters --which is to say the builds the system encouraged-- were built around spamming: a single, unbalanced shtick meant to be used over and over again, useful in many situations as possible so it can be performed almost without regard to situation or opponent)

This matches my experience.

Fighters with Leap Attack, paladins with Spirited Charge, spiked-chain wielders with Improved Trip... with a big enough hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[FireLance]

Thanks for the responses so far, folks. I'd like to ask a follow-up question, if you don't mind. For those of you who who used varied attacks, was there something that encouraged the use of varied attacks? Perhaps the rules, the DM, or the player's own preference? Similarly, for those of you who noticed the spamming in your games, what do you think were the reasons why the PCs kept using the same attacks?

 

[roguerouge]

The only people who demonstrated variety in any of the games that I've played in have been the casters. In second edition, however, melee people had a lot more variety to work with.

 

[Psion]

Why no accusations of spamming in 3e? Simple. You can only spam an attack if it has a fancy name. Thus attacks with pedestrian names --such as 'full attack'-- cannot be spammed.

More or less.

From what I had seen, the excitement for fighter types was generally the thrill of hitting and doing damage, the occasional crit. At worst, the fighters find out that some vaunted attack form doesn't work for some reason ("Grapple the wizard"/"he has free action, crap!") and adjust tactics to suit.

 

[jasin]

For those of you who who used varied attacks, was there something that encouraged the use of varied attacks? Perhaps the rules, the DM, or the player's own preference?

Unusual situations. Multiple melee PCs trying to engage a single melee opponent in a 5 ft. wide passage makes overrun very attractive, even if it means you won't do any damage or that you'll take an AoO.

Margin for error, both in terms of tactics and character design. At very high levels, my wizard AoW wizard got so powerful he could provide support in one fight, blast with spells in another, and wade into melee and unload with Arcane Strike in the third. If I had to find the absolute optimum or die, I would've been less likely to branch out.

Options (in play, as opposed to character design). A wizard or cleric or beguiler will likely try out more different approaches over time than a sorcerer or a barbarian, because they simply they have more different approaches to choose from.

Similarly, for those of you who noticed the spamming in your games, what do you think were the reasons why the PCs kept using the same attacks?

Either simple efficiency (if it works better than anything else...) or the fact that the player liked his focus on a single schtick.

 

[AllisterH]

This matches my experience.

Fighters with Leap Attack, paladins with Spirited Charge, spiked-chain wielders with Improved Trip... with a big enough hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Let's not forget the Barbarian Dungeon-Crasher build. Damage was the best sure-fire method of "winning" combat since unless your DM focused on small to large-sized humanoid NPC as level 6 and above, increasingly, you faced creatures that were disgustingly too big/too strong/immune to be effected by Bullrush/Trip/Disarm

 

[DeusExMachina]

Yeah, we spammed full attacks, but with combats usually not lasting many rounds it wasn't very obvious. Also, that was one fo the reasons I hardly ever played straight up fighter classes.
I had much more fun with rogues or fighter/mage combos and the like. Not because they were better damage dealers, but because they were more interesting options wise...

 

[Jhaelen]

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'm the DM for a group of nine players in 3E.

I've found that the only way to get them to deviate from their 'standard' tactic is to vary their opposition. I'm trying to use all kinds of monsters and especially pay attention to their resistances and immunities so they cannot simply be blasted to oblivion.

I've never seen anyone using bull-rush, disarm or fighting defensively. There's one player who uses trip attacks from time to time and there was one player using power attacks some of the time.

They're now approaching level 13 and to be honest, I'll be glad when I can finally finish the campaign (it's going to be another 2 or 3 adventures so they should be level 15-16 in the end). After more than five years I'm in danger of burnout...

Nonetheless, my players are pretty happy overall and aren't interested in switching to 4E.

Maybe I should also note that noone has been interested in playing one of the ToB classes, so far, since they 'look too complicated'.