No full attack option?

[sidonunspa]

WotC's Andy Collins posts in this thread (seventh post down) that the full-attack option has been removed from 4th Edition. He also briefly discusses the designers' goals to create more mobile combats. Removing this option reduces the "shall I stand here and fight or move?" choice prevalent in 3E combats; added to that, of course, is the previous info that Attacks of Opportunity have been changed (see Chris Perkins: "we've made attacks of opportunity dirt-simple by reducing the number of things that provoke AoOs"), presumably with the same intent -- "we're designing the game to encourage, even mandate movement from one place to another. More powers that reward movement, more short-range teleportation/flight, more powers that involuntarily move enemies...these all get us away from the static fights that 3E encouraged."

Humm

The first thing I don’t like about 4e…. no full attack option?

Well, it’s not that I don't like it.... more like I don't know how to feel about it...

Just doesn’t feel "right”… can someone help me here?

In Star Wars the reason why they did it was to help encourage combat at range... but in D&D?

 

[Sir Brennen]

In Star Wars the reason why they did it was to help encourage combat at range... but in D&D?

Not sure how no full attacks encourages combat "at range", but in Star Wars the reason they did it was for the same stated reason as 4E... to encourage more mobility and a diversity of tactics, rather than just running up to an opponent and just stand there hacking away. As the same piece you quoted from states, there's now more abilities which require movement to trigger (like the Scout's Skirmish ability in 3E)

I know I much prefer combats with a lot of cinematic action. It sounds like 4E is trying to achieve this with mechanics like I just mentioned, and giving the DM more ways to have interesting environments for combats to take place in (building on Mike Mearls' "Action Zones" from Iron Heroes.)

 

[Nifft]

Regarding SW Saga encouraging ranged attacks, I have one word for you: Jedi. Not all combat occurs at range.

Some optional attack forms in SW Saga still require a full-round action -- Whirlwind Attack, of course, but also Double and Triple Attack, which allow you to make two or three attacks, but unlike iterative attacks, ALL of your attacks suffer a -5 or -10 penalty (respectively). It's nice because your bonus is static, so you can roll all your dice at once.

SW Saga also has other nice things to do with your actions: you can spend your Swift & Move actions to Aim, which (if you have the right feats) allows you to ignore cover, gives you a +1 to attack, and gives you some bonus damage. That's similar to a full attack in that you must choose to move or gain extra benefits, but far simpler to resolve.

Cheers, -- N

 

[drothgery]

In Star Wars the reason why they did it was to help encourage combat at range... but in D&D?

No, they didn't. It's just as easy to stand around shooting at range (as per d20 Modern or Star Wars RCR non-Jedi) as it is to stand around hacking at each other in melee (as per D&D 3.5 or Star Wars RCR Jedi). They turned iterative attacks into a flat damage bonus to make the combat round go faster. The classic d20 'full attack' disappeared as a side effect.

And I think that's what happens in 4e. You'll still be able to get multiple attacks in 4e if you really want them, and you'll have to give up moving to do so, but it won't be 'baked in' to the attack progression; you'll have to take feats to get extra attacks, and using them will be a full-round action (or maybe a standard action + a move action).

 

[sidonunspa]

Not sure how no full attacks encourages combat "at range", but in Star Wars the reason they did it was for the same stated reason as 4E... to encourage more mobility and a diversity of tactics, rather than just running up to an opponent and just stand there hacking away. In the same piece you quoted from states, there's now more abilities which require movement to trigger (like the Scout's Skirmish ability in 3E)

I know I much prefer combats with a lot of cinematic action. It sounds like 4E is trying to achieve this with mechanics like I just mentioned, and giving the DM more ways to have interesting environments for combats to take place in (building on Mike Mearls' "Action Zones" from Iron Heroes.)

But if there are no 5' steps, and you can only get all your attacks if you don't move at all...

I see every fighter going to the big two-handed weapon... because if I get one attack.. well I want to make it count.... also its the death of two-weapon fighting, seeing the only way you get both attacks is if you don't move... at all...

ya I know I don't have all the facts.. but thats kind of the way it feels

 

[Jack Daniel]

Humm

The first thing I don’t like about 4e…. no full attack option?

Well, it’s not that I don't like it.... more like I don't know how to feel about it...

Just doesn’t feel "right”… can someone help me here?

In Star Wars the reason why they did it was to help encourage combat at range... but in D&D?

Have you ever actually played a high level (16th+) D&D combat? The only thing that slows the game down more than waiting for the wizard to decide which spell to cast is waiting for the fighter to make all of his probably-going-to-miss-no-matter-what iterative attack rolls.

Iterative attacks were added to 3.0 as a way of making high-level combat "more exciting", since the fighter's first attack would always presumably hit, but the iterative attacks could still be hit-or-miss, thus adding an element of tension. The actual in-play result, though, has been that the first attack usually always hits, the last attack usually always misses, and you just spend more time each round rolling dice and resolving actions.

Replacing multiple attacks with a level-based damage bonus as per SWSE is frankly a stroke of genius.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If true, it explains some other things that have been hinted at.

However, it will radically change the equation as it stands now. I'm not convinced that that change alone will force a more dynamic combat. PCs stand still to whale out damage on NPCs. They want to take them down. If there are more opponents doing things to other party members, then yes, sometimes a PC will move. BBEGs are often targets and see responsive moment. However, just taking away multiple attacks may not encourage fighter types to dance and leap around the battlefield....

 

[Sir Brennen]

Right, Varianor. Which is why there are going to be movement based abilities, and it sounds like it will be easier for opponents to *make* each other move, thus creating more dynamic combats. As I mentioned, the DM will also be able to have the environment play a bigger role, too. Removal of full attacks is only a part.

Edit: sidonunspa, regarding 2-handed weapons, yes, you'll pack more wallop with such a weapon, but it also sounds like in 4e armor buffs won't be as common, so you are giving up a lot by not using a shield. And I'm not sure if the 5' step has been eliminated.

As for 2-weapon fighting, this is such a cinematic trope I can't see it being diminished too much. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a talent or feat which lets you make an extra off-hand attack as a swift action or something similar. Or perhaps simply increased damage on a single attack roll, like some of the SW talents/feats.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

And good riddance, IMHO!

I much prefer the way SWSE handles it. Combat is quite a bit faster and more cinematic.

 

[Glyfair]

Have you ever actually played a high level (16th+) D&D combat? The only thing that slows the game down more than waiting for the wizard to decide which spell to cast is waiting for the fighter to make all of his probably-going-to-miss-no-matter-what iterative attack rolls.

My campaign right now is only about 7th level and I have the ranger making 3-4 ranged attacks per round. It takes forever for him to figure out exactly which attack roll when with which bonus and which ones hit and didn't. I'd hate to see him at 16th level.