PDA

View Full Version : Standard Action Bonuses Through Tiers



Ignatius
2011-03-28, 11:53 PM
Hello... in talking with a friend of mine that plays and enjoys 3e over 4e we came down to the fact that in 3e the higher the level you are, the more damage you do (same as in 4e) but the more actions you get as well (different from 4e).

What do you think would happen if you got 1 standard action per tier. So from level 1 to 10 you would get Standard, Move, Minor.

From level 11 to 20 you would get Standard, Standard, Move, Minor.

And, Level 21 through level 30 you get Standard, Standard, Standard, Move, Minor?

I think that this would not only increase the speed of combat, you would look forward to higher tiers, because you know you could get more done each turn, not just hit and be hit for more damage.

I can't see how this would affect the stats of monsters or players, but maybe I am missing something.

MeeposFire
2011-03-29, 12:19 AM
I am curious how you get more actions in 3e in general. You don't just get more actions just by leveling.

Meta
2011-03-29, 12:31 AM
This would be very difficult to balance. These PCs would tear through on level encounters as their damage output could fairly easily be tripled. To counteract that you'd need to throw much higher level monsters at the party. This will stall combat, as to even up the balance to make entertaining and challenging fights you'll need to reduce the PCs accuracy to almost 1/3 its original to return it to normal.

Missing 80% of the time or walking over encounters doesn't sound too fun to me.

Loren
2011-03-29, 12:34 AM
I'd presume he's referring to I'd presume he's refering to itenerative attacks.

I don't think this would work well by way of balance as it would double the rate at which damage is being dealt when a character tiers. One would have to grant the same increases to monsters to keep some semblance of balance, but this seems rather sketchy to me (it's tricky since monsters aren't built like PCs). Effectively it would being giving everyone double turns, minus a move.

Flickerdart
2011-03-29, 12:37 AM
Iterative attacks have been replaced by increased weapon dice on higher-level powers. If you choose to add iterative attacks, you would have to reduce the dice of these powers.

Ignatius
2011-03-29, 12:42 AM
In 3e a level 20 fighter gets 4 attacks per turn... +20/+15/+10/+5

In 4e a level 20 fighter still gets only 1 attack per turn but it will do only 1[W] more damage...

I do see how having three attacks per turn can make killing monsters easier though.

Loren
2011-03-29, 12:52 AM
:confused: are you talking about base attacks? One should never, ever opt to use a base attack in 4E on ones turn regardless of level. Using a power is basicallt always more effective.
If you want to give iterative attacks as replacement for using a standard action to make a base attack, then yes this would be balanced, but once you bring in powers everything falls apart.

As a side note, there are some powers with an 'until the end of your next turn' clause on them, which grant you an advantage or your opponent a disadvatange. These powers would be far more powerful if one had multiple standard actions. A system which increased the number of standard actions per turn would make these powers vastly supperior to others. Therefore a rebalancing of the powers would be require to make such a system fair.

MeeposFire
2011-03-29, 01:01 AM
In 3e a level 20 fighter gets 4 attacks per turn... +20/+15/+10/+5

In 4e a level 20 fighter still gets only 1 attack per turn but it will do only 1[W] more damage...

I do see how having three attacks per turn can make killing monsters easier though.

I think it would be better, if you had to make a change, to make basic attacks (and other at wills) do 1(W) per tier so by epic it would be a 3W attack. This would mimic the increased damage that you are looking for without adding attacks which more quickly gets super ridiculous.

Think about it. Rangers are the most damaging striker due to their large number of attacks. Your idea turns everybody into the ranger extra attack mechanics and turns the ranger even more insane. Extra attacks are not the answer.

RebelRogue
2011-03-29, 06:37 AM
The removal of the full attack in 4e is very deliberate, IMO not so much because of balance, but because of the time it takes for high-level 3.5 melee characters to go through iterative attacks that will probably not hit anyway :smallsigh: Instead, you get to basically do one cool thing per turn and then pass the torch and be done with it. AoE-based characters still have to make a large number of rolls sometimes, though.

Grogmir
2011-03-29, 06:40 AM
[QUOTE=Ignatius;10655405]In 3e a level 20 fighter gets 4 attacks per turn... +20/+15/+10/+5

In 4e a level 20 fighter still gets only 1 attack per turn but it will do only 1[W] more damage...
[QUOTE]

True, For your at will, But they'll have loads of powers that give 2W, 3W by level 20, And at 21 your basic at wills become 2W.

As others have said, you attack 'less' but hit harder.

Did the fighter really enjoy swinging and missing with that 4th attack each turn? And arn't the positives. I.e Melee characters are no playable out way the 'negative' of a 4th often useless attack?

Kurald Galain
2011-03-29, 06:54 AM
Hello... in talking with a friend of mine that plays and enjoys 3e over 4e we came down to the fact that in 3e the higher the level you are, the more damage you do (same as in 4e) but the more actions you get as well (different from 4e).
You do get more actions as you level up. This is because you'll have more powers that work as minor or free actions, or outside your turn as immediate actions.

evirus
2011-03-29, 08:05 AM
Hello... in talking with a friend of mine that plays and enjoys 3e over 4e we came down to the fact that in 3e the higher the level you are, the more damage you do (same as in 4e) but the more actions you get as well (different from 4e).



The iterative bonuses only apply to weapon based attacks not to casters. I always thought those options were there to try to offset the power of casters vs non casters.

Since 4th ed magic an non magic users are already balanced, wouldn't that be redundant?



What do you think would happen if you got 1 standard action per tier. ...
I think that this would not only increase the speed of combat, you would look forward to higher tiers, because you know you could get more done each turn, not just hit and be hit for more damage.

I can't see how this would affect the stats of monsters or players, but maybe I am missing something.


If you apply these bonuses to both monsters and PC's you'll get series of attacks from monsters with little to no chance from reply (or heal) from the PCs. Many GMs have "types" of monsters act on the same inititiative, when they act you have all the monster attacks multiplied, basicaly condensing rounds of combat into one squence but not letting the PC's heal, move, control these monsters.

If you did this, you would need to raise the level of the encounter or the level of the monster to make sure the PCs don't anhilate the monsters, however that same change would make the monster's counterattack almost unsurvivable...

Erom
2011-03-29, 08:28 AM
My concern is mostly that if you triple PC damage, your PCs will either never feel threatened, or you'll have to use beefier monsters to compensate. If you start beefing up the monsters, you'll find yourself in a situation where either the defenses are so high that 2/3 of your triple attacks will miss (which is boring, since it makes every players turn into a Flurry of Miss) or the attacks are so high that it's really lethal and you'll start losing players left and right (and you'll mostly lose melee players, returning one of the reasons why melee can't have nice things in 3e).

Cartigan
2011-03-29, 08:37 AM
I'm confused why people wanting to play 3e don't just play 3e....

tcrudisi
2011-03-29, 09:04 AM
In 3e a level 20 fighter gets 4 attacks per turn... +20/+15/+10/+5

In 4e a level 20 fighter still gets only 1 attack per turn but it will do only 1[W] more damage...

I do see how having three attacks per turn can make killing monsters easier though.

Assuming no feats:

In 3e a level 1 fighter gets 1 attack per round at +1 to attack. If they use two weapons, they get -6 and -10 to the attack rolls.

In 4e a level 1 fighter can make 2 attack rolls at no penalty (Dual Strike) so long as both attacks target a different creature. He can also mark both of them, thereby allowing him to do the historic job of the fighter: protect the party.

In 3e a level 20 fighter gets 4 attacks per turn .... +20/+15/+10/+5

In 4e a level 7 fighter can pull every enemy within 3 squares of him adjacent to him and then attack them all, applying a penalty that forces them under threat of punishment to stay beside him and attack him back, protecting his allies. If there are 8 enemies nearby, he makes 8 attacks.

Really, if a level 20 4e fighter is only making one attack, it's likely because there's only one target in reach. He should be attacking as much as the 3.5 fighter (and be attacking more consistently).

I strongly advise not doing the changes you mentioned. It would literally make it to where the bad guys never got a chance to act. Combat would be trivial unless the bad guys somehow managed to win initiative (hint: they wouldn't in my party since I ensure that my entire party goes first beginning at level 11 which is when your changes begin to take effect.) The bad guys would never get a chance to use that second standard action when my allies all get to do two standard actions on their turn. My controller would ensure that, should we all somehow roll incredibly poorly, they will still not get a chance to act. But really, strikers rule the day since they can cut down the bad guys so quickly anyway, using two attack powers per turn. Can you imagine having a Sorcerer or Genasi Wizard who gets to AoE twice (three with Action Point) before the bad guys get to move?

4e is very well balanced as it is. If the player is complaining that he doesn't get to attack as much then he's just chosen powers that don't let him attack as much. It's easy to create a 4e Fighter that makes more attacks than the 3.5 Fighter does should you choose to build it.

Also, in 4e you do get more actions as you level up if you build your character that way. Feats and Powers begin to allow you to use them as non-standards more often. Free actions and off-turn actions appear a lot more (summon spirit companion as a free action, shift Dex mod squares as a free action when you shift into beast form as a free action, more immediate interrupt and reaction attacks, the list goes on and on). If you need proof of this, play one session at epic level. It's amazing how freaking long one round can take: every player makes multiple attack rolls and every player has something they can do on everyone else's turn. My DM got frustrated after one session and said, "Okay, 43 vs. Will. Your will is 36. I'm sure it misses." And sure enough, it would because we had so many out-of-turn actions to utilize (and yes, I'm well aware of the 1/turn immediate actions rule).

Nu
2011-03-29, 10:33 AM
If you're at all building your characters correctly, an epic level character (for many classes) should have plenty to do outside of his or her turn. That counts as "extra actions" to me.

Also, Ring of Free Time.

Lord Ascapelion
2011-03-29, 12:00 PM
I would say that this is a bad, bad, bad idea. The multiple attacks in 3.0/3.5 is a mechanic to keep martial-type classes effective. If you were to do the same thing in 4e, absolutely nothing would be difficult. Every encounter would be incredibly easy. Doing the same thing to monsters would just make it a matter of who won initiative.

evirus
2011-03-29, 12:04 PM
I would say that this is a bad, bad, bad idea. The multiple attacks in 3.0/3.5 is a mechanic to keep martial-type classes effective. If you were to do the same thing in 4e, absolutely nothing would be difficult. Every encounter would be incredibly easy. Doing the same thing to monsters would just make it a matter of who won initiative.

In addition it would be like giving wizards and clerics in 3.x additional actions as well...

darkdragoon
2011-04-05, 08:09 AM
Twin Strike, Storm of Blows and dailies in general say hi. Also keep in mind it also means your Cleric, Warlord etc. are now applying 3+ buffs , or perhaps the same buff to 3 different characters.

Even two extra basic attacks would be questionable given the bazillion ways to boost them.



The iterative bonuses only apply to weapon based attacks not to casters.

Swordmage. Warlocks with Eldritch Strike. Clerics. Paladins. Avengers. Monks.
Battleminds. Ardents. Assassins. How about an Artificer with Magic Weapon?

evirus
2011-04-05, 03:09 PM
Ignatius:

Have you gotten enough feedback? Has the thread helped you clarify the attack situation of 3.5 vs 4 to the player you were having this discussion with?

Daftendirekt
2011-04-05, 03:24 PM
Yeah, extra standard actions is a terrible idea for 4e, due to the amount of powers that give you more than 1 attack. Say you do a nova round and use all of them that you have, you could be doing 10+ attacks in a round. That would just be retarded.

hoff
2011-04-05, 05:07 PM
Extra actions is a terrible idea for 3e too. It just makes the combat a lot longer.

MeeposFire
2011-04-06, 01:11 AM
Extra actions is a terrible idea for 3e too. It just makes the combat a lot longer.

It makes rounds longer but it will make a combat take less rounds since you are doing o much more in those rounds. Hard to say how that would affect time.

Ignatius
2011-04-07, 12:42 AM
Yeah - thanks for all of your feedback. There are some good points in here.

I am playing in a 3e and 4e campaign at the moment, and when I originally posted I was comparing the difference in speed of combat encounters between 3e and 4e...

Now that I have played a few more sessions in both groups I think that the increased speed in encounters comes down a lot to the players in the groups, rather than the ability to hit or not hit more often and the choice of powers.

hoff
2011-04-07, 06:04 AM
It makes rounds longer but it will make a combat take less rounds since you are doing o much more in those rounds. Hard to say how that would affect time.

3e is balanced around that, it it weren't (and it did not have extra actions) it would be faster.

RebelRogue
2011-04-07, 06:35 AM
3e is balanced around that, it it weren't (and it did not have extra actions) it would be faster.
For a liberal definition of the word 'balanced' :smallwink:

MeeposFire
2011-04-07, 01:07 PM
It wouldn't be an exact comparison anyway since 3e had attack that progressively got worse (iterative attacks) while 4e almost always have attacks that attack at your max attack bonus. This makes a big difference. Also defenses were not as standardized in 3e as 4e. Melee attacks were also all against AC in 3.5 and this is also not the case in 4e.