Well, one of the things about 3.x is that the offensive abilities of characters and monsters are favoured over their defensive capabilities. The leads to glass cannons and the problem that if the players don't essentially end combat by turn 4 or 5 (they may have to take a few more rounds just to mop up disabled enemies), they're probably gonna die.
How did you avoid spamming attacks in 3e combat?
- Thread starter FireLance
- Start date
aboyd
Explorer
To me, in 3.5 edition, there is a wealth of character build options, which makes things feel less spammy. This is not a feature of the edition, but rather a feature of being around for a long time so that there are many splatbooks. 4th edition will get there.
However, there are some things about previous editions that do help to avoid spamming attacks. The many various combat options (bull rush, charge, grapple, trip, sunder, disarm, and so on) actually get used in the games I play (and to a lesser degree, in the games I DM). So even someone who "merely" specializes in hitting things with an axe has a lot of options, and uses them.
In addition, one of the things that the original post sorta outlawed was one of the very things that worked -- I think the original post said something like, "except spellcasters, why is 3.x different?" Well, spellcasters is why. In one campaign, I play a cleric. I can change my spells daily. I have had days of non-combat divination & investigation spells (Zone of Truth, Speak with Dead, and so on). I have played a general with an army (Summon Monster, Spiritual Weapon, you get the idea). I could go on, but I won't, you understand. Things can get incredibly varied, and allowances for this one class alone can be huge. Add in any other class that can pick from a big list of spells (I think wizards & druids fall into this category) and you've got huge variance for some spellcasting classes. That still happens in 4th edition, but with rituals and the embrace of classes that are built for spamming (such as the warlock) it's a little different.
The real point is pre-3.x, though.
Anyone who has seen the "how to play old-school" PDF knows that older editions encouraged inventiveness. For example, in 3rd edition and later, you might say to the DM, "I leap down to attack with surprise and force! Do I get any advantage?" And the DM might ask, "Well, do you have the leap attack feat?" And that's it, you have the feat or you don't. But in older editions, if you ask to do a leap attack the DM might say, "That will take dexterity to coordinate the attack and combat experience to use the momentum to your advantage, so give me an ability check using dex, and if you make it, we'll determine the extra damage based upon your level."
In other words, in older editions, you might just make things up as a matter of course, and your DM might just house-rule a possible system for doing it, on the fly, all the time. The fighter could just "swing, swing, swing" -- and I remember some players playing that way, and mostly disliking them. But there were players who took old-school gaming to the limit. They would look for advantages from the environment, advantages from other players, coordination and disruption, feinting and just about anything else that would give them an edge. It made combat creative and varied.
I remember one fighter liked to knock things with his sword, and leave marks (like Zorro leaving a Z). So in the course of battle, he would flick his sword toward a box on a table, or toward fruit hanging on a tree, and then send the item hurling toward the enemy. It was never intended to do damage, but the DM (ahem, me) would award itty bitty bonuses such as, "that distracts the enemy for a split second, the next player attacking gets +1." These things were fun and full of character. While I love my 3.5 books, I kinda miss the old featless systems.
However, there are some things about previous editions that do help to avoid spamming attacks. The many various combat options (bull rush, charge, grapple, trip, sunder, disarm, and so on) actually get used in the games I play (and to a lesser degree, in the games I DM). So even someone who "merely" specializes in hitting things with an axe has a lot of options, and uses them.
In addition, one of the things that the original post sorta outlawed was one of the very things that worked -- I think the original post said something like, "except spellcasters, why is 3.x different?" Well, spellcasters is why. In one campaign, I play a cleric. I can change my spells daily. I have had days of non-combat divination & investigation spells (Zone of Truth, Speak with Dead, and so on). I have played a general with an army (Summon Monster, Spiritual Weapon, you get the idea). I could go on, but I won't, you understand. Things can get incredibly varied, and allowances for this one class alone can be huge. Add in any other class that can pick from a big list of spells (I think wizards & druids fall into this category) and you've got huge variance for some spellcasting classes. That still happens in 4th edition, but with rituals and the embrace of classes that are built for spamming (such as the warlock) it's a little different.
The real point is pre-3.x, though.
Anyone who has seen the "how to play old-school" PDF knows that older editions encouraged inventiveness. For example, in 3rd edition and later, you might say to the DM, "I leap down to attack with surprise and force! Do I get any advantage?" And the DM might ask, "Well, do you have the leap attack feat?" And that's it, you have the feat or you don't. But in older editions, if you ask to do a leap attack the DM might say, "That will take dexterity to coordinate the attack and combat experience to use the momentum to your advantage, so give me an ability check using dex, and if you make it, we'll determine the extra damage based upon your level."
In other words, in older editions, you might just make things up as a matter of course, and your DM might just house-rule a possible system for doing it, on the fly, all the time. The fighter could just "swing, swing, swing" -- and I remember some players playing that way, and mostly disliking them. But there were players who took old-school gaming to the limit. They would look for advantages from the environment, advantages from other players, coordination and disruption, feinting and just about anything else that would give them an edge. It made combat creative and varied.
I remember one fighter liked to knock things with his sword, and leave marks (like Zorro leaving a Z). So in the course of battle, he would flick his sword toward a box on a table, or toward fruit hanging on a tree, and then send the item hurling toward the enemy. It was never intended to do damage, but the DM (ahem, me) would award itty bitty bonuses such as, "that distracts the enemy for a split second, the next player attacking gets +1." These things were fun and full of character. While I love my 3.5 books, I kinda miss the old featless systems.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
If DMs are closing the option down if there's no feat, then I don't they're doing a very good job. Take a look at the feats for combat maneuvers like bull rush, overrun, sunder, etc. They take an action, that has some drawbacks, and remove the drawbacks/provide bonuses on resolving the action. That's the model that should be followed in resolving actions that aren't specified in the 3.5 rules. Assess the move, assign some mechanic, and if it's a generalizeable enough action that the PC might want to improve, develop a feat to make it a little more advantageous.
There are some things that should be feat only - things that significantly dodge the rules like spring attack. But if it's something you could envision an enthusiastic adventurer trying, and having some chance of success doing without advanced training, then it fits the mold of being a general special attack/combat maneuver available to anybody.
The trick here is interpreting what the PC wants to do and discriminating between general maneuver that should be OK and attempt to break the rules and get an advantage that's fundamentally unfair.
So in the case of the jump down and attack with surprise/force - I'd say make your jump check and move silently check and then probably treat it like a charge. If the jump fails, you didn't jump far enough, but - hey - you still moved and that might be worth something. If the move silently failed, it wouldn't be a surprise. I still might assign the ever popular +2 circumstance bonus for being particularly unexpected, if not completely undetected and thus causing loss of Dex bonus. And the charge? Well, you are dropping in with gravity to speed you along and that seems charge-like enough for me.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Amen. Xp for you.
If we examine the spamming experience its clear that what is perceived as spamming only exist once there are defined "buttons".
Lets take the standard character sheet for example. Early D&D character sheets were simple things that the player used to keep track of Stats, AC, hit points, saves, ect. As the game grew and more maneuvers were kept track of with thier specific bonuses the sheet gradually became more of an action menu of options during play (in theory if not actual practice).
Each custom move was recorded as an option. Not all players used the sheet this way but some did. For the tired or lazy gamer these moves became easy buttons for actions. This has progressed from moves, to feats, to full on power menus.
Every edition has guidelines on atypical actions to a greater or lesser degree. Players making use of them is another matter. Some players have no trouble coming up with wacky non-standard actions and others are content to use a menu. Its all down to the player's investment and interest in the game. Some players may feel that older games aren't worth trying because its just a case of " I attack", after all, thats all there is on the sheet right?
I'd have thought an RPG fight getting boring and repetitive would depend on players and DM failing to do interesting things and describe them evocatively, not whether they fail to use as many different rules as possible.
Not a good comparison, because RPG bells and whistles have to be operated manually. Some people like operating them, but to say they're an unequivocal step forward is ridiculous.
Or... he might not. *shrug* Just about any game is fun & exciting with an inventive DM. The 3e DM from your "leap attack" example would just say, "There's nothing in the rules about getting a bonus for that" in previous editions, because that's how those kinds of DMs operate (if it's not in the rules, you can't do it).
Bullgrit
Adventurer
You don't understand. In order to help make another game/edition look bad, you have to use bad DMs and bad Players in any examples of play. In order to help make a game/edition look good, you have to use good DMs and good Players in any examples of play.
It's, apparently, a law.
Bullgrit
Well, to go for a more mechanical, rather than automatic, tech...
3Ed is like modern agriculture. Modern agribuisiness uses a lot of tech, but also a variety of techniques- crop rotation, planned hybridization, etc.- that use knowledge rather than or in addition to tech that has boosted crop yields. Without what we've learned about agriculture, many more people in the world would go hungry.
Likewise, 3Ed was built from an accretion of design decisions over the decades, resulting in a powerful gaming engine. Everybody can find something to enjoy.
4Ed is more like organic farming. While fairly advanced in many ways, it rejects certain design techniques- like detailed subsystems to handle a wide variety of combat options- and by doing so, it has "reduced its potential harvest." It may taste good, but some gamers aren't going to be eating because (to them) it doesn't bring enough to the table. They are "hungry for more."
Scribble
First Post
See I disagree with this idea. I don't see it as rejecting "detailed subsystems." I see it as rejecting the idea of excess subsystems that lock you into a certain string of events.
Grappling and the like are "excess" to you?
They may have clunky mechanics, as some contend, but they surely are not "excess." Almost any kind of hand-to-hand combat since we left the trees and started walking has involved grappling to some extent. Its so common that certain combat-based competitions have rules to prevent it.
Similarly, "disarming" is also not excess, yet it is absent from 4Ed.
It would seem that your "excess" is my "realism."
