Full-attack action gone in 4e

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
Andy Collins comments in post #7 of this thread that the full-attack action has been removed from 4e.

That fits with the "standard action to attack with two claws" from the dragon example.

Just thought I'd throw it out there. Personally, I like the idea of fluid combat, and removed the full-attack is a major step in that direction.
Andy Collins comments in post #7 of this thread that the full-attack action has been removed from 4e.

That fits with the "standard action to attack with two claws" from the dragon example.

Just thought I'd throw it out there. Personally, I like the idea of fluid combat, and removed the full-attack is a major step in that direction.

It's a near-certainty they'll be using the SWSE action system, methinks.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Nice. This removes all need for the following lament.

"Should I stay still or should I move now?
Should I stay still or should I move now?
If I don't move there will be trouble
But if I stay here I can hit double
So you've got to let me know
Should I stand here or should I go?"

(with apologies to The Clash)
Yeah it's becoming clear that SAGA was just most of the stuff they'd made up for 4e at the time.

Just in case anyone's concerned by this, it's not that there is nothing to be gained from using all of one's round to attack.

There usually is a benefit to doing that (the ranger's two-arrow attack was a rapid fire attack, which uses the entire round). It's just not a very dramatic benefit anymore.

Using one's round to do nothing but attack gives a benefit to the attack, but not such a big one that moving is discouraged. Often moving will give a greater benefit. And no fighters will really say "Damn, I have to move more than five feet this round, almost a waste of a turn" anymore, because the drop down from an all-out attack to a standard action attack just isn't as steep.
It's a near-certainty they'll be using the SWSE action system, methinks.

Which still has full attacks.

While SWSE did away with iterative attacks, it still requires you to stand still (very still - it doesn't have 5' step) and use full attack to wield your two weapons or gain the extra attacks from the Double Attack or Triple Attack feats.

So this is new.
There usually is a benefit to doing that (the ranger's two-arrow attack was a rapid fire attack, which uses the entire round).

It you're trying to interpret his atttack by SWSE rules, then the two-arrow attack could have been a use of the Rapid Shot feat, which costs you a swift action. You'd still have your move action left of the round though.

Staying in SWSE mode, it could also have been the Double Attack feat, which does use the entire round.

By May 2008 we will know what it really was... :D
Which still has full attacks.

While SWSE did away with iterative attacks, it still requires you to stand still (very still - it doesn't have 5' step) and use full attack to wield your two weapons or gain the extra attacks from the Double Attack or Triple Attack feats.

So this is new.

Yeah, even though iterative attacks and the 5 ft. step are gone in Saga, the Full round action still exists – sacrifice your Standard, Move, and Swift action for a Full round action.

Maybe 4th edition will get rid of the Full round action all together, or maybe just Full attacks?

As Saga tried to encourage movement, maybe they didn't go far enough as you still have to stand in one place with no movement whatsoever in order to gain a Full round action/attack. So maybe 4th edition will go the extra mile and remove Full round actions/attacks entirely to encourage movement in every round.
I am not sure I like this, but from a discussion in another thread, where I think Steely Dan was also part of, I will go back to my examples...

The Marilith :D

6 arms....from the note that full attack is gone however, 2 weapon fighting still is possible to gain a 2nd attack, I would use (even if the standard Monster Manual, doesn't) the marilith as 6 attacks/round cause frankly..it would make 'sense' for something like that to be able to use all it's arms.

But in some ways, doesn't removing interative attacks really lower the 'heroic' aspect of characters for high levels? (I have a feeling feats will be there to get 2 or 3 and in epic levels, even 4 or 5 attacks)

I know it didn't make sense, getting in 20 attacks before enemy got in 1, but at the same time..it is a game, an abstraction of a real fight from real time into turn based. We didn't find multi attacks slowing down the game that much!

maybe cause we don't have fights that often?

Regards,

Sanjay
Nice. This removes all need for the following lament.

"Should I stay still or should I move now?
Should I stay still or should I move now?
If I don't move there will be trouble
But if I stay here I can hit double
So you've got to let me know
Should I stand here or should I go?"

(with apologies to The Clash)



Yeah, even though iterative attacks and the 5 ft. step are gone in Saga, the Full round action still exists – sacrifice your Standard, Move, and Swift action for a Full round action.

Maybe 4th edition will get rid of the Full round action all together, or maybe just Full attacks?

As Saga tried to encourage movement, maybe they didn't go far enough as you still have to stand in one place with no movement whatsoever in order to gain a Full round action/attack. So maybe 4th edition will go the extra mile and remove Full round actions/attacks entirely to encourage movement in every round.

Playing SWSE, I found that you can make a viable combat character without taking the feats that give you more attacks. I like this aspect of the game.

I am not sure I like this, but from a discussion in another thread, where I think Steely Dan was also part of, I will go back to my examples...

The Marilith :D

6 arms....from the note that full attack is gone however, 2 weapon fighting still is possible to gain a 2nd attack, I would use (even if the standard Monster Manual, doesn't) the marilith as 6 attacks/round cause frankly..it would make 'sense' for something like that to be able to use all it's arms.

Just because you have 6 arms doesn't necessarily mean that you can use them all independently. Now, here's how it works, I'll use General Grievous as an example, he has four arms in which he is holding 4 lightsabres. Now, the most attacks he gets is 4, and he has triple attack and fighting with two weapons - and this has a high penalty, a loss of about half his chance to hit. Sure there are advantages to this, but not always.

Now, one big advantage that multiple arms give, even if you don't want to use them for attacking all at once, is that it gives you the option of different weapon types, and that could be a great advantage.

But in some ways, doesn't removing interative attacks really lower the 'heroic' aspect of characters for high levels? (I have a feeling feats will be there to get 2 or 3 and in epic levels, even 4 or 5 attacks)

Not really, the reason for the iterative attack was to give the fighter and other melee types the chance to do increased damage so they could stay viable at higher levels. The problem is that getting a +1 to hit with at 16th level isn't going to do much (in the way of damage), it just makes you roll a die in a unlikely chance you'll hit. SWSE did something smart to get rid of the need for iterative attacks: you get one half your heroic level as a damage bonus. So a 20th level character gets +10 damage.

I know it didn't make sense, getting in 20 attacks before enemy got in 1, but at the same time..it is a game, an abstraction of a real fight from real time into turn based. We didn't find multi attacks slowing down the game that much!

maybe cause we don't have fights that often?

Regards,

Sanjay

Well, as to the abstraction, try to imagine combat consisting of a lot of parrying and swinging during a round and the ONE attack you get is when you actually get a decent opening that might connect with an opponent. The way D&D is now, it's hard to have a swashbuckling fight that is seen in many films.
The Marilith :D

6 arms....from the note that full attack is gone however, 2 weapon fighting still is possible to gain a 2nd attack, I would use (even if the standard Monster Manual, doesn't) the marilith as 6 attacks/round cause frankly..it would make 'sense' for something like that to be able to use all it's arms.

I agree; I would still like our six armed trollop to be able to attack with all 6 arms and ass/tail as a standard action.
Well, in terms of 6 arms not reflecting it being able to use them independently...in Hellbound, a 2e detailed expansion of tanar'ri it mentions how they can use all arms totally independently, to the level of them casting multiple spells at he same time (an optional rule i do use even in 3.5E as long as only 1 spell requires verbal components).

In such cases as a powerful demon, I think it makes perfect sense as they do not follow human restrictions on how our brain/nerves work

The rest I agree with you

Sanjay
Now, one big advantage that multiple arms give, even if you don't want to use them for attacking all at once, is that it gives you the option of different weapon types, and that could be a great advantage.

Very, very true, and as 4th edition might have more emphasis on different weapon types…
I don't know how I feel about this at all....

My first feeling was "I don't like it at all" but then I started to think that I don't know all the rules soo.. I don't know if I like it or not...

But it made me go... Uggggg....

This is the death of the shield wall I guess... I liked 300

Also, if all I get is 1 attack if I take more then a 5' step.. I guess I'm going to use the biggest two-handed weapon I can get my hands on.. because if I get one attack.. I will want to make it count.
There is a way to make full attacks mobile. Simply change the rule that says you are limited to one five foot step when you make a full-attack, to saying you are allowed one five foot step between each attack on a full round attack, so long as you do not move further than half your base speed. So a human could move three times between attacks, while a dwarf could only move twice.

You could charge into the middle of a group of combatants on your first round, targeting the strongest opponent, and on your second round (assuming you let live) you could hit the leader, move five feet left, hit the guy to your left, move five feet back, hit the leader again, move five feet right, and hit the guy to your right. Assuming you are high enough level to get four, or are weilding two weapons and get three attacks with your main weapon
While SWSE did away with iterative attacks, it still requires you to stand still (very still - it doesn't have 5' step) and use full attack to wield your two weapons or gain the extra attacks from the Double Attack or Triple Attack feats.

So this is new.

My problem here is the two-weapon fighting limitation. Typically, a two-weapon fighter is intended to be quick and mobile, unlike the guy with platemail and a greatsword. But this rule would make two-weapon fighters far less mobile, because he needs a full attack action to hit with both weapons.

I really don't see a balance issue in moving attacks with both weapons to a standard action. A guy with two shortswords is only doing the same base damage as a guy with a greatsword (2d6), and the dual-wielder burns a feat and takes a penalty to his attack roll.
The more I read about this the more I don't like.. like I posted in enworld....

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...
My problem here is the two-weapon fighting limitation. Typically, a two-weapon fighter is intended to be quick and mobile, unlike the guy with platemail and a greatsword. But this rule would make two-weapon fighters far less mobile, because he needs a full attack action to hit with both weapons.

I really don't see a balance issue in moving attacks with both weapons to a standard action. A guy with two shortswords is only doing the same base damage as a guy with a greatsword (2d6), and the dual-wielder burns a feat and takes a penalty to his attack roll.

We don't know what attack options you'll have with your standard action in 4e. Maybe you can attack with both weapons as a standard action.

In my (heavily) house-ruled Conan RPG game, I let two-weapon wielders add an off-hand attack to their regular attack by spending a swift action. Works well.
The more I read about this the more I don't like.. like I posted in enworld....

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...

Andy said that the "full attack" action had been removed - not that you couldn't make more than one attack. I think it's obvious that it has been removed because they've invented a better mechanism for those cases where multiple attacks makes sense (like for your two-weapon wielder).

Or maybe I'm just more optimistic than you...
Which still has full attacks.

While SWSE did away with iterative attacks, it still requires you to stand still (very still - it doesn't have 5' step) and use full attack to wield your two weapons or gain the extra attacks from the Double Attack or Triple Attack feats.

So this is new.

This assumes Andy was speaking a lot more precisely than people, in my experience, actually do 99% of the time. I and many other people I know say "full attack" when they mean to refer to iterative attacks.

And even on your interpretation, there's no reason the things you mention can't still be in the system and just not be called full attacks. In fact that would make more sense than the SWSE way of doing things, since they are no longer the assumed norm even in that system.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Well, since there seem to be examples of characters making multiple attacks with a standard action I don't think that kills the TWF.
Mind you, depending on changes to the Fighter class the two weapon fighter may be cheering or booing. If every fighter is expected to specialize in a single weapon now, splitting your powers across 2 different weapons (the primary weapon and the off hand weapon) may make that off-hand weapon mostly useless. Or if there are nice synergies with weapons that can be set up, the two weapon fighter may be all powerful.

Sandulax

The more I read about this the more I don't like.. like I posted in enworld....

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...

Well, as I stated earlier, the round in SWSE is 6 seconds, not very long, and if you can swing two swords upwards of 6-7 times in 6 seconds, please show me, not to mention if you're using a rapier, a piercing weapon you're going to extend yourself more than when using a slashing weapon, making it harder to get more attacks in. But if you want a less technical envisioning tool, just imagine the fight in your head and take as many attacks as you need, the one you roll for though, is your perfect moment, the chance you have to actually do damage/tire out a foe (I use both terms because hp are an abstract measure of damage you can sustain and the ability to get out of the way of a hit which tends you tire you out.)
I would bet that there will be a rapier Talent that's something like 'as a standard action you rain a flurry of strikes down on your enemy; make one attack roll and do 3x normal damage.'

Reducing the number of attack rolls is a good thing. All iterative attacks ever did was let the fighter miss once more per round.
At first, I didn't like this, but after last night, where I spent hours trying to find a way to maximize my scout/rogue (or what ever I end up making...I'm gonna be stuck with the skill monkey slot) I found it nigh impossible to make character design that would actually work well in the limits of the party.

We're playing a canned adventure path, but we've only got 3 PCs. The Skill monkey has got to give at least a nod to the support or destroyer role, and with a game designed to support iterative attacks, that means making iterative attacks as often as possible.

The headache of this character design problem would be much reduced in a system designed for 1 attack per round, and frankly, I find that combat is much more fun in GURPS where you can make up to 2 attacks per round, but going beyond one attack is a big risk. I'd like to see something like that in 4e. Not the GURPS model itself, but one that zooms around the table, yet still presents enough options to allow an interesting array of actions.

I'm not saying that the problem would actually be solved. Trying to optimize a three character party for a four to five character adventure would still be a problem. But it's one less thing to worry about.
Iterative Attacks are just a way for 3.X PCs to try to match damage of monsters with lots of natural attacks.

But removing lots of regular attacks is fixed by having a Damage Threshold and Conditions. You don't have to kill somethings HP to drop it, you just have to hit it really hard a few times (3 to 5 times). In fact, Condition Tracks seem to be telling me that the Developers are trying to shorten combat by making things easier to kill (assuming you can overcome their threshold).

Look at other games like Zelda: Twilight Princess. The bosses are all pretty much do something three times and they die. I like that model. If D&D is about the story, combat should be something where it is fast (honestly, if you've hit something four times, it's not like the fifth hit is going to bring any sort of enlightenment or new experience).

But, this is not to say you can hit a dragon 5 times and knock it out, it will still have a high damage threshold: 10 + HD + Con is still going to be a bit.