No full attack option?

[Victim]

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.

Since each weapon is getting special moves and abilities relating to each weapon, then I don't expect the greatsword to stay the same relatively. The longsword gets its multiattack, the greatsword gets ???

 

[hong]

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.

D00d, you just ain't played the right cinemae.

 

[hong]

Since each weapon is getting special moves and abilities relating to each weapon, then I don't expect the greatsword to stay the same relatively. The longsword gets its multiattack, the greatsword gets ???

The most obvious greatsword special would be more damage per hit. 2d6 -> 3d6 -> etc.

 

[danzig138]

We WANT

We who? Did I miss a union meeting or memo or something? Did we elect a spokesman?

As for this allowing for more movement and cinematic combat, whatever. If your players run their characters as standing there toe-to-toe hacking away and doing nothing else, that's on them. My group has plenty of movement and lots of stupid cinematic maneuvers.

I really don't see what the problem is with iterative attacks. You can roll a handful of d6 for a fireball spell, you can roll 3 or 4 d20 for attack rolls. Do the DMs here roll one die at a time for monsters with multiple attacks?

Everyday, I'm learning more and more that my style of gaming is very different from that of others online. Ah well, I still hope the adopters have a blast with the game when it comes out.

 

[Ranger REG]

I really don't see what the problem is with iterative attacks. You can roll a handful of d6 for a fireball spell, you can roll 3 or 4 d20 for attack rolls. Do the DMs here roll one die at a time for monsters with multiple attacks?

Who says I oppose multiple attacks?

I oppose the restriction on movement (only 5 feet) while making multiple attacks under the full attack option.

I'm tired of the current iterative attack bonus formula. Instead of having +6 bonus for the primary attack and +1 bonus for the secondary attack (for example), why not just give us +6 bonus for both two attacks? Easier to remember.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Since each weapon is getting special moves and abilities relating to each weapon, then I don't expect the greatsword to stay the same relatively. The longsword gets its multiattack, the greatsword gets ???

who knows. I'm just saying, the may not be the best way to do damage if iterative attacks are taken out. The article that talked about the longsword did say it would be the most well rounded weapon.

 

[F4NBOY]

deleted

 

[F4NBOY]

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.

Yeah right... whatever you say chief.

 

[Jhaelen]

Also in this instance it’s even better to focus on one weapon, to get all it's maneuvers as soon as possible. Then split up your maneuver “slots” on two weapons… UNLESS lets say the dagger and rapier manuvers they are designed to work together, which seems like a starch…

Well, there have been combat style feats in 3rd.ed. that did exactly that:
Offering two or three interesting maneuvers if you wielded one or two specific weapons.

I don't think, power attack will survive it into 4th.ed. unchanged. I fully expect them to balance it vs. using two-weapon fighting. If there is no 3rd.ed. style power attack, it won't matter much which weapons you use, if you get a level-depended damage boost.
It should have a similar effect that the 2nd.ed. Darksun setting had on weapon choices:
Since it was pretty easy to get a Str 20 score, most of my players no longer cared for a weapon's base damage. It matters little if you're doing d4+12 damage or d10+12 damage.

If each weapon type will have a number interesting maneuvers (that do something besides just doing more damage) attached to it (as advertised), personal preference will dictate which weapons are chosen, which is as it should be.

 

[Nebulous]

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.

They'll never stop randomizing them, they make so much more money that way. I just go to Ebay to a preferred seller and buy the minis i want (in addition to a few random packs). Works for me, and i don't have 16 halfling rogues from one set.