No full attack option?

[sidonunspa]

Right, Varianor. Which is why there are going to be movement based abilities, and it sound like it will be easier for opponents to *make* each other move, thus creating more dynamic combats. Removal of full attacks is only a part.

But this encourages all fighter types to just pick up the biggest weapon they can get… Hell if I’m going to get one attack, I will make it count.

I just see the death of the two-weapon fighter, the dagger fighter, and flashy swashbuckler, because the tank with the huge weapon will rule the day.

Ya I may be wrong here, and if I am… show me how please.

And no I don’t know all the rules in Star Wars... but I see shooters with one major advantage, the target can move all he wants, but the shooter can stand still, use two-weapon fighting, rapid fire… and get three shots off.

A melee combat guy takes more than 5’ and he gets only one attack..

 

[Sir Brennen]

But this encourages all fighter types to just pick up the biggest weapon they can get… Hell if I’m going to get one attack, I will make it count.

See my edited response above.

 

[Jer]

One thing that this suggests to me is that it's probably going to be harder to play 4e without a battlemat and tokens of some sort. 3.5e is already pretty hard to play totally "in your head" depending on the feats that the fighters take. 4e sounds like it's going to make combat even more dynamic and detail-focused than 3e's combat. If you're going to have explicit abilities that push opponents back, reward moving around during combat, and generally doing the stuff I've always assumed was supposed to be going on in a D&D combat, a lot more of the representation is going to have to be on the board.

Which is not a complaint, really, just an observation. In fact, for miniatures-based D&D combats this sounds a lot closer to the style that I wanted 3e to be. It'll just make things a little tougher for those nights when we want to sit around on the couches instead of sitting up at a table.

(And getting rid of iterative attacks is something I stand behind 100% - iterative attacks were great in theory, but in practice, my 10th level campaign is really slowing down in combat, even with the players designating dice with different colors for different attacks and rolling them all at once. I can only imagine what they'll be like above 15th level.)

 

[WhatGravitas]

However, just taking away multiple attacks may not encourage fighter types to dance and leap around the battlefield....

Sure, but I think nobody expects that. Without the full-attack, you don't lose anything by moving, therefore you don't have to make that mental check "is this movement worth enough to lose my effective attack", instead it makes moving basically penalty-less.

Now, if you get an incentive to move (for example special terrain or even moving forth and back every round to cover and back to avoid ranged attacks), you can make the move without fearing to lose anything out, just because you've tried something.

If a good DM makes gives varied terrain that can be put to use - then that's cool, because you don't have to double-check that much (this also decreases your turn time, because you don't have to think about such stuff).

I just see the death of the two-weapon fighter, the dagger fighter, and flashy swashbuckler, because the tank with the huge weapon will rule the day.

Not necessarily. In SWSE, you can get extra attacks with two weapon-fighting. And there are feats to get extra attacks. I think, combined with a maneouvre-system (ala Bo9S), all weapons can have their distinct edge.

Imagine: The agile dagger fighter may have a sub-par weapon, but his dagger feats allow making extra attacks - this will give the dagger fighter a very different feel from the huge weapon fighter, who only makes one blow, but will be on a similar level of effectiveness.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Cadfan]

sidonunspa-

The reason we will probably not see all fighters going to the biggest possible weapon is because

1) It seems likely that damage will be resolved differently.
2) If Book of Nine Swords is an indicator, there will be special attacks that a character can learn which are executed as standard actions, and which grant flat bonuses (ie, bonuses which depend on the maneuver chosen and not on the weapon used).
3) The difference in damage between weapons is not all that great at high levels, and will probably be even less in the future. This is because flat damage bonuses exist which don't depend on weapon choice. A longsword in D&D does 1d8+str damage. A shortsword does 1d6+str. This amounts to an average difference in damage of 1 point, which might matter at level 1, but won't matter at level 15.
4) There are other advantages to various weapon choices. Longsword and shield raises your AC, for example. Swashbuckling types generally have higher mobility. I 4e, its been stated that other weapons will have other special options (special abilities for spears, flails, etc). Even if the greatsword does more damage, the player will have to balance that against what other weapons grant.
5) Finally, we already have a game in which the greatsword does the most damage. Many players choose it because of this. Not everyone does. I expect 4e will be similar in the long run. Some players will always just go for the highest damage weapon. That's not so much D&D doing that, its the players.

 

[sidonunspa]

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.

You always lost a lot when you gave up a shield.. remember using a two-handed weapon is not about AC it’s about.. I kill you before you can kill me...

Hell right now in 3.5 you give up a lot by not having a shield... a shield can give you up to a a +7 to AC without feats. (And that’s not counting the tower shield)

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.

Maybe that will work (the swift action) but I hate the idea of it just adding extra damage to the roll… What if you want to attack one target with the main weapon and another target with your off hand?

 

[Jer]

Now, if you get an incentive to move (for example special terrain or even moving forth and back every round to cover and back to avoid ranged attacks), you can make the move without fearing to lose anything out, just because you've tried something.

You could also have maneuvers that require you to move before (or after) performing them - the payoff for a particular maneuver might well be worth dancing around an enemy to perform it.

They have also indicated that terrain and terrain-changing effects are going to have more emphasis in combat with 4e than in the current edition. If the terrain is shifting on you because of the opposing wizard or druid throwing spells around, that might encourage more movement on the battlefield as well.

 

[Pbartender]

But this encourages all fighter types to just pick up the biggest weapon they can get… Hell if I’m going to get one attack, I will make it count.

I just see the death of the two-weapon fighter, the dagger fighter, and flashy swashbuckler, because the tank with the huge weapon will rule the day.

Ya I may be wrong here, and if I am… show me how please.

Don't forget that using the fighter class "unlocks" special abilities for each type of weapon that are unique to that particular weapon. In a vague way, they've already hinted about spears bypassing armor, long swords disarming, and axes cutting through armor and bone.

In other words, they are giving you reasons to use various other types of weapons... reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with the amount of damage dealt.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Another thing that's interesting about Saga: Charging is a standard action, the only difference is that your movement is not doubled. So you can move into position up to your speed and charge up to your speed, or you could charge up to your speed, then move up to your speed away from opponent. Very interesting for hit-n-run tactics.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

sidonunspa-

The reason we will probably not see all fighters going to the biggest possible weapon is because

5) The 'power' choices for 1h+s or 2h or TWF are going to (hopefully) be competitive with each other.

* - Dang it, Pbartender ninjaed my answer!

Brad