No full attack option?

[sidonunspa]

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

I guess I will just put this under "wait and see"....

But I'm scared... someone.. hold me

 

[Knightfall]

(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.)

I can answer that question: Scary.

My player's PCs are all 18th-level or higher.

 

[hong]

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....

Yep, I said before that you need to not just remove the penalty for moving, you also need to give an actual _advantage_ for moving. Otherwise there would be no reason to do so, and people might as well stand still and pound on each other. Still, the SAGA rules do give out a benefit on a "full attack", and this new emphasis on terrain might go a long way to addressing this.

 

[outsider]

Multiple attacks were always basically level based scaling damage for warriors, similar to a mage getting an extra d6 on his fireball every level, or a rogue getting an extra d6 on his sneak attack every second level.

Problem is, it was a very flawed mechanic. Most importantly, it really slowed the game unneccessarily. It was also typically too weak, generally the more attacks you have, the less likely you are to hit with them. It is also extremely random, since you have to roll to hit multiple times.

I don't think level based scaling damage for fighters is going away. I suspect it'll take a far more elegantly designed form though. Personally, I'm not too attached to the concept of multiple attacks. I was back in 2nd edition(What do you mean I can only attack one time per minute?!?!?!), but now that we are working with 6 second combat round, I don't really see it as a neccessity.

 

[Wormwood]

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

A G R E E D

 

[WhatGravitas]

Problem is, it was a very flawed mechanic. Most importantly, it really slowed the game unneccessarily. It was also typically too weak, generally the more attacks you have, the less likely you are to hit with them. It is also extremely random, since you have to roll to hit multiple times.

Nitpick: Too weak? Only against high-AC monsters. Usually, against CR-appropriate monsters and with level-appropriate buffs (including haste), a raging barbarian can lay down serious smackage with his first two or three attacks!

But it's time-consuming.

Cheers, LT.

 

[sidonunspa]

Nitpick: Too weak? Only against high-AC monsters. Usually, against CR-appropriate monsters and with level-appropriate buffs (including haste), a raging barbarian can lay down serious smackage with his first two or three attacks!

But it's time-consuming.

Cheers, LT.

In a home game not to long ago I had a duel rapier using swashbuckler.... I would hit with my first three attacks all the time.... Also I have seen a half-orc barbarian who would always hit with his first two attacks (or three if boots of speed are on)

 

[frankthedm]

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.

1. We have no guarentee the two handed weapon's STR x1.5 and power attack x2 will survive to 4E.

2. CR apropriate encounters will be critters in equal number to the PCs. That likely means they won't be as high hit-pointed. That means more wasted 'overkill' damage will be dealt when you could have had a shield.

3. CR apropriate encounters will be critters in equal number to the PCs. That likely means hard fights will have the PCs drowning in schlubs, in which case a few points of AC is a life and death thing.

 

[F4NBOY]

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

Maybe.
What about multiple monsters?
We were already told 4E will have more monsters per encounter, so character will need more rounds to wipe them out?
In SWSE there is cleave, double attack, dual weapon attack, so multiple attacks still exist but characters just need to invest more to get them, and they are pretty much wasted feats if you go melee. It's not that bad for a star wars game, where blasters are all around, but for D&D?

I don't know, I have the feeling we are make too much assumptions here, Andy Collins said Full Attack was gone, but NOT Multiple Attacks per round. Maybe you can attack multiple times with a standard action, did anyone consider that yet?

The ranger in the playtest shot 2 arrows in his round, plus a third as a immediate action, but he had multiple attacks to do normally, at first level, and considering Full Attack is officially gone, then how did he do it?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

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.

Those fighting styles don't work with the core rules anyway, and even with material outside of core aren't too effective.

In melee two handed weapons and occaisonally sword and board always beat two weapon fighting, the exception being the rogue with two weapon fighting.