How did you avoid spamming attacks in 3e combat?

[billd91]

I think this thread response boils down to "Death is the ultimate condition".

While not fancy, killing your enemies in one or 2 strokes is fun. So even if the fighter's method of doing that was limited, the ability to lay down death to enemies very quickly can be exciting, especially when they are doing the same thing to you.

I think why 4e gets accused of spamming is that you can hit the same enemy 4 times and its still not dead, and that gets discouraging.

I believe there is much wisdom in this post. When running 3.5, the frustration my players show seems to be mostly when something is able to resist their attacks for too long. I think the typical solo monster in 4e would really annoy them. The one time we did encounter a solo in a 4e game I played, the frustration at the table was considerable. It took forever to just bloody the thing... and then we had to do it again!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Without being edition specific at all, D&D combat is abstract and largely ablative in nature. The original intent was for the combat system to resolve conflicts quickly and return to the exploration/adventure.

The basics of D&D combat were never designed for complex movement/actions. As more detail was added to the simple system the more repetitive everything seemed. D&D has always featured classes, levels, and ever increasing pools of hp as the basic foundation for combat.

This system works great as long as it stays simple and quick. Attacks need to do decent damage in relation to hp and hp pools need to stay fairly low.

Everything seems so repetitive because it is. No matter how flashy a name you give to feats or powers the base system is still one of abstract ablation. Bogging things down with loads of extra mechanics only brings the repetition into stronger focus, to the point of being very noticable.

If the focus of the game is indeed going to be tabletop combat then it needs to redesigned from the ground up with that in mind. What we have with both 3E and 4E are a collection of overly complex modifications hitched to a simple abstract system that was never intended to pull such a load.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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

Which is sensible considering those are maneuvers for "man-to-man" combat, generally speaking. Animals and other strange beasts are better suited to simply be whacked on (via reach weapons, etc.).

 

[jasin]

At the very least, a fighter should be ready to grapple an enemy spellcaster, demoralize something with a low Will save and an even lower Reflexes save, or use an appropriate magic item. Playing a fighter without tactics is like playing a wizard who always memorizes the same spells.

The thing is that, barring unusual circumstances, demoralizing (for example) is bad tactics, unless you've invested heavily in it, in which case you're probably doing it all the tame (v. spamming your favourite attack).

There's too much of an opportunity cost to doing something other than what you're specialized it.

 

[Cadfan]

At the very least, a fighter should be ready to grapple an enemy spellcaster, demoralize something with a low Will save and an even lower Reflexes save, or use an appropriate magic item. Playing a fighter without tactics is like playing a wizard who always memorizes the same spells.

Meh. Beyond low levels, these things stop mattering much. At level 12, why grapple an AC 20, 43 HP enemy wizard when you can attack him with a chain of attacks that goes +22/+17/+12, threatens on a 17+, and hits for 2d6+12? That's just a +3 greatsword and the weapon specialization chain. Its not even fancy.

 

[roguerouge]

Also, if spamming attacks bothered you, you had the option to be a caster with a great deal of variety in game to game choices. If spamming doesn't bother you, a melee class build was fine.

 

[Mallus]

There's too much of an opportunity cost to doing something other than what you're specialized it.

Bingo.

It's sort of an overall problem with 3e's design. The system offers a wide variety of options coupled with compelling reasons not to use most of them.

 

[jasin]

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."

A very interesting observation.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Without being edition specific at all, D&D combat is abstract and largely ablative in nature. The original intent was for the combat system to resolve conflicts quickly and return to the exploration/adventure.

The basics of D&D combat were never designed for complex movement/actions. As more detail was added to the simple system the more repetitive everything seemed. D&D has always featured classes, levels, and ever increasing pools of hp as the basic foundation for combat.

This system works great as long as it stays simple and quick. Attacks need to do decent damage in relation to hp and hp pools need to stay fairly low.

Everything seems so repetitive because it is. No matter how flashy a name you give to feats or powers the base system is still one of abstract ablation. Bogging things down with loads of extra mechanics only brings the repetition into stronger focus, to the point of being very noticable.

If the focus of the game is indeed going to be tabletop combat then it needs to redesigned from the ground up with that in mind. What we have with both 3E and 4E are a collection of overly complex modifications hitched to a simple abstract system that was never intended to pull such a load.

I agree with this analysis. That's one reason I felt 3e+ hasn't gone far enough in changing the game, overall.* That is, the game has been shifted to more of a tactical combat game for which the original "abstract combat" system doesn't really work. As you note, this really requires a rethinking of the whole matter rather than adding "complexity" to the underlying combat mechanics of AC, hit points, and damage rolls.

*I'm one of the players who believes that 3e+ are not subsequent editions of AD&D or D&D: they are different games. Therefore, I'm actually more open to "radical change" in the core of the system than might be expected.

 

[jasin]

I believe there is much wisdom in this post. When running 3.5, the frustration my players show seems to be mostly when something is able to resist their attacks for too long. I think the typical solo monster in 4e would really annoy them. The one time we did encounter a solo in a 4e game I played, the frustration at the table was considerable. It took forever to just bloody the thing... and then we had to do it again!

I never had a fight in 4E that dragged on enough to truly become boring, but I certainly experienced this inversion of what I assume the intent is, where "He's bloodied!" becomes a cry of despair rather than rising morale (as it is with weaker opponents). "He's only bloodied... and we're out of Dailies and Encounters, so, what, not even half way there!?"

Having more powers that are more useful late rather than early in the fight would help.