How did you avoid spamming attacks in 3e combat?

[Runestar]

I'm sure players would have appreciated being able to buy cool-but-inefficient items, if only the system made that not a losing proposition. By the same token, players never seemed to want to spend money on mounts or other cool-but-inefficient stuff. (I could say the same thing about castles, etc, but that latter bit was more my running style than rules issues.)

MIC resolved that issue to some extent. They realized that players are always going to opt for belt of strength over any other belt, so they gave us the best of both worlds - being able to (effectively) combine your belt of strength and belt of battle together at no extra cost. Same for the other stat boosters.

Probably a little sloppy, but that is perhaps the most efficient fix in a setting where the importance of the big six was already deeply ingrained, and it was not possible to wean players off them without giving the rules a complete overhaul.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Tell that to everyone who expounds the virtues of Castles & Crusades.

I'm not saying that a simplified RPG is a niche that doesn't need to be filled.

In all honesty, I would still enjoy a game of The Fantasy Trip- the RPG that arose from Melee and Wizard wargames. That's 3 (4?) stats and less than 4 minutes to generate a PC...if you're indecisive.

Despite that, I wouldn't enjoy the Fantasy Trip as a replacement for 3.XEd.

Simplified versions of D&D already existed before 3Ed, ready to play. After 3Ed, there were several stripped down D&D clones that hit the stands from 3PPs. We- well, many of us (especially if recent polls on this site are accurate indicators of the gaming community at large)- didn't need or want WotC to give us a stripped down rpg to replace a game that we felt only needed adjustment, not gutting. To people like me, the disappearance of certain rule subsystems seems a massive step back.

Think of it like new cars.

Is there a charm in getting to own and drive a 1965 Ford Mustang? Sure! Would I want a new car built as if many of the intervening years of automotive innovation simply didn't occur? No way. A new car without antilock brakes, fuel injectors, and the like would be incomplete by modern standards.

 

[Spatula]

The reason we saw it happening is because everyone who tried to vary their attacks soon realized that it was suboptimal.

*nod* This is the consequence of the massive potential damage output in 3e. Non-attack options would have to be damn impressive to compete with the ability to take an opponent out in 2 rounds.

 

[Felon]

Crappy damage is certainly possible, but dailies never miss altogether.

Both warlock dailies missed altogether. However, they have an effect of 5 ongoing damage--rather pitiful compensation for blowing a daily.

His basic attack didn't have any special effect? He didn't have any situational powers that hinged on the special effect created by his basic attack (so that he has to hit with basic to use the more powerful ability)? He didn't have any rechargeable powers?

I recall that he marked people he hit, but since he was the only guy left, that hardly mattered. I think this was some official adventure that was a follow-up to Red Hand of Doom. The guy's name was "Sinruthe" or "Sunroof" or something.

Some of them might as well! Last Sunday a wizard launched his first ever fireball, and rolled 4 on his 3d6. Total of 12 damage, except that he missed all his attacks so the targets took 6 damage each and that was the end of the 5th level daily. Everyone round the table raised their eyebrows and said "was that it?[/]

Yep, there's a lot to be underwhelmed by with 4e, and fireball's general weakness ranks amongst them.

 

[Dragon Snack]

I never noticed much spamming of attacks in 3.x (until the Psion in my last campaign, who could customize and overcharge her damage dealing powers). I usually used multiple opponents however (and when I did have one opponent, Grapple* sometimes saw use if the 'save or die' failed) and I often made use of terrain.

I also used options with my monsters/BBEGs, so my players saw the potential of Disarm or Trip (actually, one of my players would school me with a well placed Bull Rush every so often). In addition, the monster/BBEG wouldn't stand toe to toe with the Fighter with the big hurty thing either, so my group would have to vary their attacks to get at them.


*We used the Grapple rules so much, we pretty much had them down. Odd how using something forces you to learn it...

 

[Bullgrit]

Lets consider the meaning of the original topic here:

How did you avoid spamming attacks in 3E combat?

Think about that question for a moment. How many of us that played this game in the somewhat early days (1980's) sat around and wondered why we constantly spammed attacks in combat? Did we constantly try and figure out why our sword specialized fighter was always smacking enemies with his sword? I didn't waste any time thinking about that.

The concept of "spamming" comes from video games. ZOMG !! there were videogames around before 4E

Its interesting to note that the notion of a fighter who is well trained in the use of a sword and uses it to defeat his enemies has come to be known as "attack spamming" rather than competently attacking.

When did doing something radically different every round in a combat become the norm and attacking with a weapon become "spamming" exactly?

It wasn't 4E since the OP is wondering how it was avoided in 3E.

This. This was my initial thought at reading the beginning of this thread.

Bullgrit

 

[Zustiur]

Exploder wizard has it right.
Here's a pure example of grind in its worst form:
Diablo 2 - amazon vs act 5 zombie boss in hell mode.
Amazon sets up valkyrie in correct position.
Amazon targets zombie with basic damage power...
Player wraps an elastic band around the mouse.
Player returns after 5 minutes and the monster is still not dead, and the valkyrie is not scratched.

THAT is grind.

Spam on the other hand -
To be spamming one ability implies that there are other options. In earlier editions spamming didn't exist, because there really weren't any other options to speak of. 3E had the most, but they were really special circumstance effects, not attack options. They're things you use when they're appropriate to use, not something you use against day to day encounters.
That leaves standard attack/charge/full attack. None of which try to be anything other than just plain attacking.

4E by comparison, tries to make every round different by providing lots of 'options' (powers), but this just means that players notice when they're doing the same thing over and over.

I still argue that taking most of the at-will powers out of the game and actually making use of basic attack would have been a better idea.
In fact, upping the effect of at-wills, and turning them into encounter powers would have been preferable (at least, for me).

In short, I never felt any need to avoid spamming in 3E, because there was no supporting rules to cause spamming to exist in the first place.

I suppose if your really wanted a 3E example of spamming, it would be a X level wizard, who fills all of his spell slots with magic missile, regardless of level. That would be spamming. But no one would do it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exploder wizard has it right.
Here's a pure example of grind in its worst form:
Diablo 2 - amazon vs act 5 zombie boss in hell mode.
Amazon sets up valkyrie in correct position.
Amazon targets zombie with basic damage power...
Player wraps an elastic band around the mouse.
Player returns after 5 minutes and the monster is still not dead, and the valkyrie is not scratched.

THAT is grind.

I remember playing Crescent Hawks Inception and using tape to affix one of the arrow keys - in the start phase you earned money over time, but you needed to "do" something - like moving.

Or when playing C&C 1 over null-modem, we sometimes left the computer alone so that the entire Tiberium could regrow. (Unfortunately, in 1 out of 2 cases a Tiberium Monster appeared and destroyed one of the players half base or something. )

[/nostalgia]

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

In short, I never felt any need to avoid spamming in 3E, because there was no supporting rules to cause spamming to exist in the first place.

I certainly felt it. Once a battle would go on more than a couple of rounds, I felt like it didn't matter whether I was at the table or not. I could tell the player beside me "Here's my attack bonus" and walk away. Since it was a given that as a fighter or other non-magic using character that all I was going to do is full attack or move and attack. The only real enjoyment I got out of it was the thrill of doing excessive damage. It was fun to say, "I hit AC 40. Does that hit? Yeah, I thought so. I do 40 damage in a single hit. Aren't I awesome?" Only to feel really crappy when the Wizard in the group countered with "I cast a Sudden Maximized, Sudden Empowered, Energy Admixtured Fireball doing 143 damage to those 5 enemies. They take 71 damage if they can make their DC 25 Reflex Saves."

I don't think 4e went far enough. I think that at first level you should get another encounter and another daily to give a little more variety. But keep the at-wills as well. Each round should at least be a little bit of debate as to which ability seems best at that time. The same sort of decision I had playing a cleric or wizard in 3e. Is it best to cast the magic missile this round or the fireball or the dispel magic? It isn't too bad at higher levels in 4e, but I think they started the number too low.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I think I can honestly say that when people say combat's last about 4 rounds on average and attacks get spammed in 3e, I can completely agree that this is 100% true for my games.

When I ran the World's Largest Dungeon, it was almost like clockwork.

Now I'm into the Savage Tide and it's pretty much exactly the same. 2-4 rounds per encounter. The only one that lasted longer was when I kept sending waves of Lotus Dragon thieves at the party until I ran out of thieves.

For what it's worth, this has been 100% my experience.