D&D 4E Do full attacks have no place in 4e?

[Runestar]

I suppose this may seem a little hypocritical, given that in the 3e boards, I was just criticizing a weakness of melee classes being that they were too dependent on the full attack option for the majority of their damage output, and that moving compromised their damage too much. In the same vein, I was also praising how ToB made melee viable by allowing "fighters" to move up to their speed and still be able to attack for comparable (relative to a caster) damage as a standard action.

But assuming you were capable of finding a means of moving as a swift action (say belt of battle, quicksilver motion maneuver, pounce etc), the full attack was still unparalleled in terms of how much damage it allowed you to pump out (barring certain obscene damage-generating combos).

Meanwhile, in 4e, I understand that all attacks are made standard actions because the designers wanted to emphasize mobility and the tactical nature of the game, to differentiate it sufficiently from 3e, where the characters mostly just parked themselves in 1 square and flailed away until one side was no more.

However, there may be times when a character has no/little reason or incentive to move. Say a monster who has been marked by a fighter and decides to attack him instead of risking an AoO by attempting to move. In that case, his move action is effectively wasted. So I am wondering if, in the interest of allowing it to make more efficient use of the action economy, that he be allowed to combine his move and standard to perform the equivalent of some sort of full round action/attack. Maybe it could allow for more attacks or deal more damage? Or allow it to augment its existing attacks in some manner? Say if you took a full round to "line up" your shot, it received some form of attack bonus?

This too would apply to the PCs, if they too deigned to move for whatever reason remains their own. Or it could result in some interesting combos, like the fighter relying on the wizard to push him via thunderwave so that he doesn't have to spend his move action, because he wants to save it for some full-round action.

Also note that while I do not mind 3e scenarios being raised as evidence to why this would be a good/bad idea, I honestly do not wish this to degenerate into some sort of edition war. I merely wish to see the pros or cons (I suspect it has more to do with this) of it.

Wotc has been sticking to standard action powers fastidiously up to now, and I am wondering if it intends to stay the course, or will it buck the trend some time in the future? Or has it already done so and I overlooked something?

Discuss away.

 

[mach1.9pants]

The whole 'full attack' vs 'standard attack' in 3E is incredibly unbalanced (casters/bashers) and leads to dull, non-moving combats.

It has no place in 4E, or any E beyond thankfully

 

[Dice4Hire]

I have to agree. I do not want to see full attacks come back. 4E can certianly become static, especially with a fighter in the midst of combat, but the options for movement and change are so so so much beter.

 

[Mircoles]

The static nature of 3e combat was one of the things that I hated about it. It made me feel claustrophobic. I like to move in combat.

 

[Oompa]

And don't forget that the move action can be used to shift.. and some attacks or things cost a minor action so you can drop the move to a minor and do two other actions..

 

[the Jester]

No, I would not want to see the return of the full attack mechanism.

 

[Runestar]

Just curious, were there ever any times when you did not want/need to move in combat? Were there times when you moved just for the heck of it since you had a move action which you did not want to waste? Or did you all always manage to find some use for your move action, even if it meant converting into another swift action?

 

[babinro]

Only after playing 4E did I realize how bad Full Round attacks seem to hurt the flow of a game like this. While I only get to play 3.5 these days (my friends all hate 4E), I find the idea of playing melee characters pretty boring now that I know what they could be like.

Having said that, the whole idea of giving up almost all your turns options for more 'power' is a fine one and could easily find its place in 4E. Just don't make it as forced as it has been in prior editions else the game as a whole would suffer.

 

[Runestar]

That was what got me thing - is it better that all attack powers remain standard actions so players will always have access to a move action, thus giving them more incentive to find some means of taking advantage of this mobility (since you have it, may as well try to make the best of it, rather than let it go wasted)?

The original idea was that the damage done by a full attack is only a little better than your standard action attack powers (how much or little more is to be decided later). The idea is less so to replace them and become a mainstay of combat (because the general consensus is that it makes combat too stale and static), but moreso of an attack of last resort for when you do not deem it necessary to move, or think you need that little extra boost to push the enemy over the edge (is that possible, given the sacks of hp monsters in 4e have?).

Or will this simply set a bad precedent that ends up doing more harm than good?

 

[Mort_Q]

Many encounter and daily powers mimic some of the aspects of a full attacks, albeit in different ways. Secondary attacks on hits, and the like.

Depending on how the DM is playing the NPCs, and the other PCs in the party, shifting is often useful... to a party member.

I wouldn't mind there being more minor or move actions available though... though I can't say off the top of my head what.