Are Full Attacks and five foot steps a GOOD thing?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:23 pm

Is 3.X a better game for having full attacks and five foot steps, or is it something the Den has left untouched for the sake of keeping it 3.X?

Would a 3.X where warriors move further than 5ft in combat per turn make for a worse game?

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:31 pm

I know back in 2E there was no such thing as a full attack. A fighter just made all his attacks and moved his entire speed in a round. There was also no descending attack bonuses for fighters.

Although it was far from balanced with the stuff Wizards could do, I think the superior saves and not having penalties for making full attacks is something they should have kept for Fighters in 3rd.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:00 pm

Short answer: no.

What I've found is the current system rewards melee characters for going second in a round, not first. Since the first character to go will only get one attack and the second character gets a full attack, there is an incentive to wait for your enemy to make the first move. The current iterative attack mechanic is also clunky because you get a lot of attacks, but only a few are worth rolling.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:52 pm

The existence of Full Attacks for monsters makes fights with Trolls and shit a lot more tactically deep (and survivable). Full Attacks for player characters are just another way that melee characters can't compete at high level.

-Username17

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:10 pm

One thing I like from ToB builds is that the characters usually move much more around the battlefield while still dealing out massive damage.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:11 pm

Despite it being acknowledged as a problem, I thought it was odd that the Tome series didn't change the base mechanics of Full Attack

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:37 pm

OgreBattle wrote:Despite it being acknowledged as a problem, I thought it was odd that the Tome series didn't change the base mechanics of Full Attack

We did. We changed the higher level attacks from -0/-5/-10/-15 to -0/-5/-5/-5. It's not actually a very big deal, but it helps higher level fighters more than you'd think and doesn't affect monsters at all.

-Username17

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:40 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I know back in 2E there was no such thing as a full attack. A fighter just made all his attacks and moved his entire speed in a round. There was also no descending attack bonuses for fighters.

One might argue on terminology and wording. 2E attacks are still only slightly removed from 1E where meele was thought of as a series of attacks as opposed to range attacks. Multiple attacks could only be made on a single target.

I'm pretty much convinced that the 5' move was a result of the deliberate inclusion of "GURPS dancing." In gurps is was common to have weapons with different reaches. So if you were someone with a long reach weapon and someone else had a short reach weapon, he would be allowed to move one hex to his range and attack, and you would be allowed to move one hax back and attack. Sometimes known as the "Benny Hill" effect, this resulted in dancing around the combat field.

3E has a lot of GUPRS in it. The 6 second round, for example is a GURPS thing (as opposed to the one minute ... my god this is long ... standard of D&D). This brings us back to the full attack, the notion of the individual attack as opposed to a general meele action against an opponent is a GURPS thing that managed to get into the core of the 3E combat philosophy.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:51 pm

One of the biggest problems with 1E was the apple / orange / pear situation with combat actions. Meele was a cloud of actions against a target. Ranged weapons were individual actions against a target. Spells were a single action but went against the cloud of actions (segments vs speed factor) or the single action (ranged). It was a mess and Gygax wasn't good in the explaining shit department.

Breaking the minute round into quantum units where all actions are more or less equal and unique was probably a good thing, because it is easier to explain. The 5' rule allows for some manuevering on the combat but was poorly written and badly explained. (But hey it's far better than Gygax's notion that you stand in one orientation for a whole minute ... the fact that facing rules are in the one minute round but are not in the six second round ... watch me spin Rocky ... is pretty damn ironic.)

The basic problem is that no one really addresses the basic problem. We can have a simple combat system that can be resolved in near real time or we can have a complex combat system that takes a longer time to resolve and is more prone to back seat quaterbacking. 3E attempted to do both at the same time; be exceptionally detailed except in those places were it wasn't. The result isn't the best of all combat systems.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:23 pm

tzor wrote: The basic problem is that no one really addresses the basic problem. We can have a simple combat system that can be resolved in near real time or we can have a complex combat system that takes a longer time to resolve and is more prone to back seat quaterbacking.

Name one combat system that occurs in "nearly real time" please. Even "a minute is a round" you *might* get through a single player's round in a minute, but that's not quite "nearly real time" if you've got 4 players and a DM running monsters and it takes six or seven minutes a round..

Otherwise almost every other game has combat that lasts maybe 30 seconds. If it lasts a minute it's a significant fight. If it lasts 2 minutes it's an unbelievably long grinding battle. Most 10-20 second long fights take 20 minutes to resolve. Hardly "nearly real time".

I actually suspect that if you thought about all the shit going on in a single round of 3.x combat, a six second round is absurd. I know they do it to make the math easy, but if that much activity was compressed down into six seconds in real life it'd look like chaos. Not to mention that historically battles could, and often would, last for a good hour or two. Can you imagine *any* D&D character lasting for 600 rounds in combat?

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:51 pm

Is 3.X a better game for having full attacks and five foot steps, or is it something the Den has left untouched for the sake of keeping it 3.X?

Would a 3.X where warriors move further than 5ft in combat per turn make for a worse game?

Those are actually a couple of really good questions without terribly simple nor obvious answers.

As much as I personally think that the complexity of the 3e character action sequence rules is a barrier to teaching the game and gaining new players, the specifics of full attacks and 5' steps are ingrained pretty hard into 3e rules, and there are balance and tactical depth reasons for them.

The basic idea that some (but not all) characters can trade their single move for additional (usually reduced effectiveness) attacks results in a tactical game where some characters want to stay engaged in melee and other characters want to disengage and re-engage (even at the cost of suffering AoOs) and knowing how your opponents' attack rountine(s) fit into that is a major strategic advantage. I like that because it helps to make the tactical game more robust than just "close and hit" or "run and snipe" and rewards player engagement to glean info from monster turns.

The part I don't like is that trying to explain character action sequence for 3e goes something like this: You get one Full Round Action - which can be divided into a Move Action + a Standard Action + Any number of free actions, aside from Swift Actions which are free actions that exclude other Swift actions and by the way Immediate actions count as Swift Actions for he turn but can be taken on other people's turns. You can take your standard Action as a Move Action, but you cannot take your Move Action as a Standard Action. If and only if you spend your Move Action(s) on activities that don't cause you to move you can take a 5' step. You can take a Full Round action to make a Full Attack. You can take a standard action to make an attack action, but if something gives you a bonus or free attack action, you cannot take a Standard action with it. Also, within specific restrictions you can take a full-round action to double move+attack as a charge or a double-move action withdraw which can avoid some AoOs - and you can take these as Standard Actions if and only if you are limited to only taking a Standard Action due to effects other than your own action expenditure. Then there are abilities like Pounce, Cleave, and Rake which have additional effects on the action sequence. And if you're not confused yet, Attacks of Opportunity have a per round limit that is totally different from all of the preceding. That's completely nuts, and it's crazy to expect people to be able to grok that from in game face to face explanation.

4e's attempt to simplify that all down to Move, Minor, Standard should have been progress, but like most of 4e, failed in details. First, there's the issue that the band name left out Immediate and Opportunity and then there ended up being almost as many exceptions as 3e (mounts, Shaman hijinks, etc).

So in the very very abstract, I'd probably like to see a system that simplified down to even fewer base action types than 4e (Move, Standard, Reaction), but then handed out a number of semi-standard abilities that let characters take greater-than-everyone-else actions as one of those types. Archers could get a Standard that works as Move(avoid AoOs)+Attack, Fightgars could get a Standard that works as Make Two Attacks, Healbots could get a reaction that lets them Move towards an ally who is being struck, Wizzies could get a teleport that lets them Move Further (avoid AoOs) as a Move. But I really don't think you could cleanly graft something like that into 3e.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:03 pm

TheFlatline wrote:Name one combat system that occurs in "nearly real time" please. Even "a minute is a round" you *might* get through a single player's round in a minute, but that's not quite "nearly real time" if you've got 4 players and a DM running monsters and it takes six or seven minutes a round..

I'm going to need some play time to test study. I'm pretty sure that OD&D was close to the round resolution in a minute if everyone knew the rules well enough. I'm pretty sure that Time Lords was even closer to real time since combat resolution wasn't even round based. But yes, there are combat rule light systems that do approach a better sense of active combat in real time.

TheFlatline wrote:I actually suspect that if you thought about all the shit going on in a single round of 3.x combat, a six second round is absurd. I know they do it to make the math easy, but if that much activity was compressed down into six seconds in real life it'd look like chaos.

IIRC corectly back then GURPS had a 6 second turn (now it's ultra crazy with 1 second turns). Psionics in 1E had 6 seconds turns but that was mind vs mind, was bat crazy and just didn't belong in a game where half of the various forms of combat didn't work well together. (Pisonics / unarmed / and regular combat)

Not to mention that historically battles could, and often would, last for a good hour or two. Can you imagine *any* D&D character lasting for 600 rounds in combat?

But in first edition, that was only 60 rounds, totally manageable, if you are talking about a major "battle" between armies.

The boundary between "real time" and "board game simulation" isn't exactly determined by a clock. There is some degree of lag where you can still feel a part of the character before you suddenly start looking at the pieces of the board like an abstract chess game; before the calculations turn everything into a non involved absraction. There are a variety of ways to get the real time feeling even in a rules heavy system (double blinding with referees is one way, the naval similation game (non classified version) ran pretty much real time in feeling although it probably was hyper real time - but when you are dealing with ships moving at x knots per hour that might be a good thing) but the general way is to simplify the rules as much as possible or move them over to someone else to handle.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:42 pm

The only game I am aware of that is played in truly real time is World in Flames. Zing!

-Username17

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:14 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
OgreBattle wrote:Despite it being acknowledged as a problem, I thought it was odd that the Tome series didn't change the base mechanics of Full Attack
We did. We changed the higher level attacks from -0/-5/-10/-15 to -0/-5/-5/-5. It's not actually a very big deal, but it helps higher level fighters more than you'd think and doesn't affect monsters at all.

-Username17

The mobility issue remains though. Full attacks are now stronger so you have more incentive to stay within 5ft stepping range.

So do you find the idea of low mobility combat alright then?

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:29 am

FrankTrollman wrote:The only game I am aware of that is played in truly real time is World in Flames. Zing!

-Username17

True. Campaign for North Africa actually took longer than the North African campaign.

Over on Boardgamegeek.com there was a story about two gents who played, every Saturday for about 5-6 hours, World in Flames for 20 *years*. Until one of the guys passed away. They were about 2/3 through the game.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:21 am

OgreBattle wrote:So do you find the idea of low mobility combat alright then?

I do know that 4E D&D and M&M d20 has taught us that high-mobility combat (such as it was) isn't in of itself interesting either. People always have this fantasy of wanting combat to be something like two ninjas dancing through the treetops and swinging their swords at each other and then shooting spells at each other while balancing on the surface of water, but:

1.) D&D is a group-based game. Both the mechanics and player psychology puts a limit on how far the players are allowed to be away from each other. Not just because it's annoying as hell to have the archer hang back 300 feet away from the party when out in the wilderness, but also because of the implementation of core mechanics like buffs, focus fire, and tanking. Which puts a limit on mobility.

2.) D&D revolves heavily around short-range melee combat. If two such melee people are fighting what's their incentive to be hopping around?

3.) D&D normalizes everyone's speed. One of the biggest advantages of speed is gaining a positional advantage over someone. If a tarrasque doesn't move appreciably faster than a cloud giant, differences in mobility become less pronounced. But because differences in mobility is the only reason to care about it, the overall effect is low combat mobility.

4.) People will complain all they want, but they don't actually want high-mobility combat. People screamed like raped apes just at the idea of Mongol Archers even though that's a logical extension of meaningful mobility. Playing keep-away with a spiked chain or using swift/minor actions to dance in and out of melee combat is considered cheesy.

I don't see D&D becoming or even benefiting from a high-mobility game. 4E D&D is sadly about as far as you can go with it.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:40 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Playing keep-away with a spiked chain or using swift/minor actions to dance in and out of melee combat is considered cheesy.

Tonight, I played Gears 3. There was some kid going on about which weapons were cheap. He complained about every single one.

People thinking things are cheesy is mostly evidence for my grand unifying theory of everything: people are idiots.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:10 am

fectin wrote: There was some kid going on about which weapons were cheap. He complained about every single one.

In his defense, it is impossible to win without using at least one of the weapons he listed.

******

But seriously now,

How should D&D combat work?

Do we want melee characters to operate with tactics of of "close to melee, then hit until someone drops" and ranged-attack characters to operate with a goal of "stay out of melee while sniping at the frailest enemy" while hybrid characters operate with tactics of "close to melee against dedicated archers, avoid melee against meleers" That's the easy answer, and aside from a gross imbalance between melee and ranged monster encounter frequencies (and sometimes lethality) not far off from how 3e and 4e do work.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:25 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:In his defense, it is impossible to win without using at least one of the weapons he listed.

It is perfectly possible to win many game modes by simply capturing the flag and carrying it back, or by sitting on the necessary point for the necessary amount of time.

I don't think GOW: Slapfight Mode would be very entertaining, though.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:57 pm

The full attack action as implemented in 3.5 should not exist. The idea that a core fighter can move and do level appropriate damage at level 5 but not at level 10 is unambiguously bad. Anyway...

@Lago, highly mobile combat would give half the characters better movement speed and escape abilities, and the other half a bunch of snares and catch-up abilities. If you've ever watched PvP in World of Warcraft that's about how it works. The melee classes teleport to the target, hit him with a speed reduction ability, and then beat on him for a few seconds, then the ranged classes teleport away or crowd control or both. Usually they do this while running circles around a pillar like Down's Syndrome kids playing Pop Goes the Weasel. It looks stupid because if you're a kiter the optimal action is almost never hopping through the trees like Ninja Scroll, it's running in a fucking circle. It's also a huge bitch to balance because there's a very thin line between "can often get away from melee attackers" and "Mongol archer." (I haven't played WoW in years but during the time I did play every single ranged class got their turn to be a Mongol archer for at least one patch.)

So I agree with you, highly mobile combat is not as cool as it sounds.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:29 am

Re: How should D&D combat work?

Team turns. No grid. No AoO mechanic. Magic first with randomised failure chance if used in melee. Missile fire second, impossible in melee. Everyone Moves together (save to leave melee). Melee attacks come last. All fiddly crap like durations and constant damage happen for everyone at the end of your teams turn.

Can hold some of your action for stuff like aimed bows and set spears.

An initiative check (DC 15), or stealth check, or bluff, or whatever, gets you into the surprise round. No magic in the surprise round. Which team goes first is randomised at the start of combat, then takes turns. Morale failures finish off the monsters once you've obviously won.

Bows are very short range against individual targets, like -1 per 10'. Massed archery against formations at long range acts at +0 to hit with half arrows live. Massed archery vs PCs is just a few +0 attacks per round against the whole party.

Oh, right, multiple attacks when moving. Yes, but only with melee. By making melee stickier there's no risk of silly circle running. Horse archers can't stay out of charge range unless they're shooting at huge formations. Archers and Wizards should fear melee; gives Fighters something to do.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:09 pm

tussock wrote:Re: How should D&D combat work?

It depends. How do you want it to work? Cinematic or Craptastic.

Let's take the later and make craptastic great. You start off with a 1E model. Things generally happen at the same time. You keep actions at the large scale molecular level (FOR EVERYTHING).

Step 1: Determine Initative. The reason for this is not obvious. People with initative are more aware of everything going on around them. So you have players & everyone else as a group delcare their actions in reverse initative order. So if the moronic wizard is going to cast the keyhole fireball ground zero, you know enough to DUCK.

Step 2: Resolve actions in initative order.

Step 2 gets complicated with so called multiple actions and whether or not you need to resolve all actions in initative order. You can really get away with a lot by just applying everything at the end. That means you can't prevent someone from hitting you or that idiot from casting the keyhole fireball.

If you have to worry about those things you probably need rules to handle secondary attacks. You might want to change Step 2 to "Resolve actions in time order where time is determined more by weapon/spell speed factors than by initative. It could get complex. It could get Gygaxian. That's a sucky craptastic.

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:00 pm

I'd like to see surprise rounds die. 3e style surprise rounds don't work right if you surprise an enemy while already doing something tracked in combat time, like buffing, or running from other enemies, or running into a fight already in progress.

I like this system better. An initiative roll is a straight unmodified d20. Just like in 3e you roll once when you first join combat. No one can take a turn before they're aware that combat is happening, so catching enemies by surprise still lets you go first.

A rogue ambushes two bugbears named Vicks and Wedge. They all roll initiative.

Vicks: 17
Rogue: 11
Wedge: 4

Vicks goes first, and plays with his dick for a round because he doesn't know the rogue is there yet. Combat really starts on count 11 when the rogue pops out of the shadows and stabs Wedge. Then Wedge goes on 4, then the count wraps to 20 and Vicks goes.

This means that higher isn't always better so nothing can ever ever ever add to an initiative roll. (If you need a character to good at going first without relying on stealth or perception you can give them rerolls, that works fine.)

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:16 pm

Surprise in 1E was exceptionally nasty and it makes 3E seem so mild. In fact it's so nasty I can't even remember it, altough I must admit that it was exceptionally common for most people to not understand all of the ways 1E could screw someone over.

Basically under the RAW as written you could get to make a full round of attacks per each SEGMENT of surprise. That's a killer for missile users. Meele would have to move up to attack at 1' per 1" of movement rate per surprised segment. (Note it is probably very rare to get more than two segments of surprise, it could get to 3 segments if attacked by a solo ranger. Rangers could be really fucking nasty.)

You probably need a simple intitutive surprise mechanism. The real key is that it has to be able to be simply explained in a way that makes intitutive sense and sense within the rules. Flat feet were always hard to explain completely in a simple statement.

darkmaster · Post by **darkmaster** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:31 pm

Flat footed mean you've been caught off guard so you can't dodge effectively.

There.