No full attack option?

[Varianor Abroad]

Conclusion. We still lack enough concrete information on how this works, although it's certainly interesting if it will speed up higher level combat. (However, if it merely exchanges complexity then bleah. )

 

[F4NBOY]

I don't think 4E combat really needs to be that faster comparing to 3E. It does need to be smoother though.

 

[Ranger REG]

Most of this was evident from the sample fight versus the dragon. We knew that there was no full attack because neither the fighter nor the dragon used one.

The biggest problem in losing full attacks is handling attacks on multiple opponents in a round elegantly.

Based on the sample fight versus the dragon and a few more hints, we know how thats going to work too.

1) 'Triggered attacks' : I'm not sure of the exact mechanics, but it was clear that the dragon got to make attacks in responce to PC actions. Similarly, we've seen examples of attacks made by PC's in responce to NPC actions. The mechanic will probably be something similar too 'If you are attacked by a character with lower level than you, and he misses, then you can make an immediate counterattack.' Similarly, the dragon's tail strike mechanic is probably something similar to, 'Whenever you are flanked, you can make an immediate counterattack.' Essentially, this is the cleave mechanic on steroids.
2) Combat Talent Trees: Depending on the weapon that you use, there will probably be mechanics similar to the 'rapid fire' feat for archers, allowing you to make multiple attacks with various restrictions (penalties to hit, lower combat damage bonus, restricted to multiple opponents, only if you hit the first time, only if you cleaved, etc.) There will likely be talent trees that give you more triggered attack options as well (ei, when surprised, when flanked, when missed, when hit, etc.). Given the emphasis on large groups of opponents, this means that PC's will probably be making (on average) more attack rolls per round than in 3rd edition. Ditto for the DM.

My biggest gripe is that movement in and of itself neither makes combat interesting nor 'cinematic'. For example of what badly corregraphed combat looks like, see the 'climatic' fight scene in Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Theives. Lots of movement, but its all really silly and uninteresting. For an example of good fight corregraphy, see Errol Flynn Robin Hood or the climatic fight in 'Rob Roy'. The elements of the D20 system that tend to make combat cinematic are not the actions per se, and I greatly fear that the direction that 4e is taking to make combat more cinematic is actually one of my pet peeves with the D20 system. Or to put it more plainly, I love 'feats' but there is an element of thier design which really irks me (which tended to show up extensively in homebrew and third party feats), and 4e seems bent on reinforcing that part that I don't like. Namely, I never liked how feats served to open up new combat manuevers (ways to spend your actions) rather than simply making you better at them. If for example, you'd need a 'trip' feat in order to trip or a 'bullrush' feat in order to shove someone, I'd really have hated the 3e mechanics because it impaired rather than enabled.

The problem with 'special' hit point bypassing combat manuevers in D&D (or practically any other game system) is that they are extremely hard to balance. Do them wrong, and it invalidates normal attack actions so that combat ends up being tripping, pushing, and grappling each other to death alla 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves' rather than the lengthy cinematic swordplay that we want. Ask anyone (ab)using Improved Trip how this works out.

Besides which, I think that we are largely chasing a false dream if we make 'cinematic' a core value. Pen and paper games will never compete with visual media like movies or video games for cinematic eye candy.

By eliminating full attack action, that means it is possible to make multiple attacks using a standard attack action.

As for making cinematic a core value, I have no problem. We WANT our characters to copy moves and stunts we've seen from the movies (and imprinted in our minds and dreams), not all of them, but many of them. How we resolve those stuns (accepting the risk of failure) as fast and simple as possible, is what I'd like to see in the D&D rules.

Pen-and-paper games may not compete with visual media, but visual media will never compete with one's own imagination.

 

[Gort]

I love this change. One of my players always plays two-weapon light-fighter types (TWF rangers, rogues, etc) but she's probably the worst person at the table at adding up. This makes her six attacks a round a complete chore to deal with.

Having multiple attacks, but all on the same bonus, will help a lot with this.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Someone already mentioned that in SW Saga a charge is now a standard action. I would not be surprised if you were allowed to make an off-hand attack as part of your standard attack action as well (since they are getting rid of full attacks). I forget how SW Saga does it...

Also, off-hand weapon damage in Saga is x1 Str (not x 0.5) and Two-handed damage is x2 Str (not x1.5). I expect this to carry over as well, but only time will tell.

 

[sidonunspa]

I love this change. One of my players always plays two-weapon light-fighter types (TWF rangers, rogues, etc) but she's probably the worst person at the table at adding up. This makes her six attacks a round a complete chore to deal with.

Having multiple attacks, but all on the same bonus, will help a lot with this.

Maybe... but if its anything like Star Wars (read the example of the Duel Wielding Jedi above) she should just focus on one weapon...

The more I read the more worried I get... I'm a swashbuckler at heart... with just one attack most of the time I see people going weapon/shield or two-handed weapon... and I see the death of the two-weapon fighter.. aka swashbuckler.

Makes me sad...

 

[William Ronald]

I can answer that question: Scary.

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

Try sitting at a table where people are playing epic level characters and the guy with the buff fighter/barbarian was awful at math. I am no longer with that group, and the slow adding up of bonuses is something I will not miss.

My hope is that the design philosophy for 4E can be summarized as finding ways to improve ease of play to increase fun.

 

[Jack99]

I am all for this change as well. Not because I think it will save a lot of time, but because I think it is way easier to balance combat around 1 attack per round.

 

[sidonunspa]

I am all for this change as well. Not because I think it will save a lot of time, but because I think it is way easier to balance combat around 1 attack per round.

But that’s so.... unswashbukley like…

I hate the idea of “two-weapon fighting just adds damage to the attack” because if a fighter picks up a great sword… he deals 2d6.

But if I duel with two rapiers... I deal… 2d6??? And I wasted a feat?

 

[F4NBOY]

I am all for this change as well. Not because I think it will save a lot of time, but because I think it is way easier to balance combat around 1 attack per round.

Actually, 1 attack per round makes the combat longer and not faster.
You need at least one attack roll to kill one monster, you can't make the combat faster than that.
Assuming they are increasing the number of monsters per encounter and more monsters=more attacks to win the combat, if they decrease the number of attacks characters can make per round, they are doubling/doubling the combat time. So I don't think they are reducing the number of attacks per round, but making multiple attacks a better option in the combat.