No full attack option?

[Celebrim]

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

There are alot of responces I'd like to make with that starting with, "How do you know that?" I'm sure of that, although I am sure that multiple attacks with a single standard action would probably be available as a feat (or feat like ability). But I'm being deliberate vague with the specifics of the mechanic because I haven't seen them. It's entirely possible that you won't be able to make multiple attacks using the standard attack action (without some 'rule breaking' ability).

The other responce at the top of my head is, "So?" If that were true, you've just made the 5' step bigger.

As for making cinematic a core value, I have no problem.

Yes, you do. You say that you want a quick resolution system for moves and stunts because you want the mechanics to encourage the game to have a cinematic quality. Play a video game, because pen and paper will never have one. The reason is simple. Stunts and moves from cinema are primarily exciting because they are real time, and pen and paper games (even the most elaborate ones like Star Fleet Battles) are forced in the interest of speed of resolution (HA!) to be turn based. I don't think I ever realized just how important of a distinction this was until I was involved in trying to port between the two different resolution styles. It just doesn't work in either direction. It's two wholly different tactical worlds.

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

I should have seen that particular reply coming and headed it off. Sure they will. If its a question of imagination, then you don't and wouldn't need the mechanics as props. You only need the mechanics as props because of a failure of your imagination. If it was just a question of imagination, then a fight between two characters slugging it out with nothing but full combat actions would be every bit as exciting as the most exciting cinematic fight ever filmed. But obviously, its not just a question of imagination, because about the second (or third or fourth) time your (or my) imagination is asked to visualize that fight without the props provided by mechanics it runs dry of interesting things to show you.

The fact of the matter is the humans are very visual creatures. If you look at the writers that successful describe combat in an entertaining and exciting way without visuals, they rely on a very different set of tricks and tools than Hollywood uses to create those stunts that have imprinted themselves on your imagination. Turn based RPGs need to rely on a different set of tricks than works of fiction.

 

[Christian]

No. You can either get three of them if you push your other two down to swift, or two if you can only demote your move to swift and not your standard. I forget which one it is, but a Second Wind takes three swift actions and I'm pretty sure you can get one on your turn if you do nothing else.

Edit- so if I am remembering right, you always get three actions. One standard, one move and a swift. Two moves and a swift. One standard and two swifts. Three swifts. Something like that I'm about 90% certain, but I'm at work and I can't check.

Yep, that's exactly correct ... Obviously, this is unbalanced with some of the things that you can do with swift actions in D&D 3.5 . I'm willing to assume that the D&D 4 developers are well aware of that.

 

[MarkB]

No. You can either get three of them if you push your other two down to swift, or two if you can only demote your move to swift and not your standard. I forget which one it is, but a Second Wind takes three swift actions and I'm pretty sure you can get one on your turn if you do nothing else.

Edit- so if I am remembering right, you always get three actions. One standard, one move and a swift. Two moves and a swift. One standard and two swifts. Three swifts. Something like that I'm about 90% certain, but I'm at work and I can't check.

One interesting possibility, if they make swift actions more valuable (as they certainly are in SWSE), would be if you were allowed to combine your Move and Swift actions into a single Standard action, giving you two Standard actions if you need them (but at a real cost, because Swift actions would be valuable). That would combine the best of the Spycraft and the traditional D&D turn systems.

 

[Gort]

I see the death of the two-weapon fighter.. aka swashbuckler.

Swashbucklers are sword-and-board fighters. Swash (meaning sword) and buckle (or buckler). Virtually nobody fought with two swords (in the sense of attacking with both as we do in D&D) which is why I liked how suboptimal it was in 3rd ed. I'd be surprised if the two-weapon fighter got any more "dead" in 4th ed, since it's already a poor choice for anyone but a rogue.

You'll probably see a bit of a revival, to be honest, since it's likely that two-handed power attacking will be nerfed down to 1.5 x attack penalty in 4th ed.

 

[sidonunspa]

Swashbucklers are sword-and-board fighters. Swash (meaning sword) and buckle (or buckler). Virtually nobody fought with two swords (in the sense of attacking with both as we do in D&D) which is why I liked how suboptimal it was in 3rd ed. I'd be surprised if the two-weapon fighter got any more "dead" in 4th ed, since it's already a poor choice for anyone but a rogue.

I had to do tons of research on historical fighting styles for Witch Hunter (which is an alternate real-world history) Only the English used bucklers.... The Spanish and Italian favored rapier/dagger and the Spanish had a duel rapier style as well…

Besides, when is the last time you saw a good swash buckling movie where they used a buckler…

BTW there is one thing people forget about two weapon fighting over single, two times the chance of a critical… with improved critical on a rapier and bust weapon powers… with duel long swords I always seem to keep up with the two-handed weapon uses.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

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.

I heard that with the long sword you will get two attacks. If their is no iterative, and two handed swords stay the same, then you could potentially do massive damage with a long sword, compared to a great sword. this is a flawed analogy because i don't know what a great sword will do with the fighter class but here is what i see so far.

the long sword will give 2 attacks, effectively doing 2d8+2x sta + 2x flaming etc...

If great swords stay the same relatively, they would do 2 2d6+str 1.5 +1 flameing with better power attack options.

 

[KingCrab]

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.

Totally. An ability that lets you move your opponent with a hit is pretty useless if you aren't being specific about location.

I'm not against a more tactical miniatures focused game, but hopefully they will stop selling them in randomized packs so we can buy minis that we choose.

 

[The_Universe]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Full Attack Action is gone, but that iterative attacks are still in? You still gain more attacks automatically as you level, but you no longer have to restrict yourself to a 5-foot step to get them...

 

[Moon-Lancer]

thats possible

 

[Ty]

Frankly, for those of you who don't remember AD&D and 2nd Edition, Fighters and their sub-classes had a nice little thing called "attacks per round." My 14th level fighter simply rolled 2 attacks per round. Simple, clean, efficient. Yes, the 3 attacks/2 rounds was somewhat confusing and the 5/2 was simply silly but it was easy to roll, check THAC0, roll damage.

Not to be an old stick in the mud but the iterive attacks from 3.0 and 3.5 with the adding and subtracting for each roll and comparing to the target's AC was much more complex than was necessary.

Now I'm being told that movement and panacheis required in combat? Blech. The more I hear about 4th Edition, the more I'm thinking about going to Kenzer and Company. Give me weapon speeds and weapon-types versus armor types and THAC0 again if this is the nonsense we're being fed.