SuperGnome
First Post
Wait it out and reap the rewards or buy new dice... wow!
Combat very swingy
Wait it out and reap the rewards or buy new dice... wow!
Except that you're ignoring the fact that 4E is much more reliant on the d20 to resolve everything than 3.5 - and that is where the problem lies. It was possible in 3.5 to stack odds on important attacks to the point where you could almost auto-hit, in a way that is mostly impossible in 4E.
There was a plethora of dice-independent attacks, mostly limited by daily use, that could compensate for a streak of bad rolling, or avoid chance almost completely, during the more dangerous encounters. Having bad luck with dice? Fall back on a battery of Heals, Revivifies, Contingencies, True-Striking Maximized no-save spells, etc.
It is by contrast, very possible for a 4E party, no matter how well-prepared, well-built and using however optimal tactics, to fall prey to streaks of 'bad luck', whether it is the GM rolling well, or players rolling badly. Bad initiative rolls, a crit or two on the only Leader (and healing is incidentally one of the few remaining examples of 'insurance' against bad streaks) and it could be over.
This also the reason why maximizing the attack attribute and thus attack bonus is so important in 4E. Beyond even the gain in damage output, a simple +1 or +2 on the omnipresent attack roll can dramatically reduce the odds of an extended streak of bad rolls occuring, at least on the players' end.
Apart from attack bonus, a party that wants to avoid eventual TPK by random chance (swinginess) would do well to feature a leader or two, and pick powers, especially Dailes, that have some 'sure-thing' effects, whether they are Effects, auto-damage, half-damage on miss, etc.
Iron Sky
Procedurally Generated
There's really nothing you can do in any game to obviate the issue of super bad luck. We had one fight in our game where our DM never rolled above a 5 for the entire fight - no PCs even took any damage.
3.5 distributed bad luck someone at least by making the target roll saves so it wasn't one person determining all of the effects, but bad rolling is bad rolling. Personally, I think the 3.5 auto-hit(or auto-save in some cases) was a flaw, not a feature...
3.5 distributed bad luck someone at least by making the target roll saves so it wasn't one person determining all of the effects, but bad rolling is bad rolling. Personally, I think the 3.5 auto-hit(or auto-save in some cases) was a flaw, not a feature...
I suggest dispensing with dice altogether. Houserule that PCs always hit and monsters and NPCs always miss.
I think you are overemphasizing how often this worked in 3.5.
Most of the things your mention here are not auto-hits. Plus, most of these are higher level spells.
The lowest level would be Maximized Magic Missile as a 4th level spell for a whopping 20 points of damage. Even Magic Missile at first level could roll low for 2 points of damage, even though it auto-hit.
At higher level in 4E, there are wall spells, spells that do half damage on a miss (like Fireball), etc. Even Cloud of Daggers at first level does damage every round.
It is very possible in 4E to have spells that do half damage (and hence, partially work regardless of the D20 roll).
The reason it seems that 3.5 was not as swingy at higher levels is because melee PCs got multiple attacks per round, the first of which had a higher percentage chance to hit as one got higher in level. This does not happen as often in 4E.
But at lower levels, 3.5 was just as swingy as 4E. The difference is that 4E got rid of the melee auto-hit of 3.5 at high levels.
I didn't say a thing about how often it worked in 3.5, just how much more it could. Not every group would optimize to mitigate bad situation streaks with daily resources - where bad situations can arise beyond the players' control through streaks of bad luck (randomness.) In my own group, there was a lot of optimization to this end, that arose almost unconsciously as the group literally gained experience with the 3.5 system. Less system-savvy groups might not, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
If you are arguing however, that it is not more common to have stacked odds in 3.5 than in 4E, I would go so far as to say you are wrong. Even the very basic figher BAB, combined with treasure based on typical charaacter wealth levels yielded very high hit odds for the average encounter. This is why Power Attack was such a powerful feat in 3.5 - you had attack bonuses to spare.
Attacks/abilities don't have to be 100% hit to qualify as not being random. A single miss would rarely cause an instant wipe. A string of misses of failed effects however, could be disastrous. In 3.5 this is unlikely to happen because the odds of getting say 5-10 rolls below 3 or 4 is astronomically low. In 4E however, missing 5-10 times in a row because you couldn't roll a 11 or above is orders of magnitude more likely. It's still not likely to happen every time, but the eventuality of it occurring is that much more likely than in 3.5. Remember also that the base chance to hit decreases as you go up in levels, in 4E.
The reverse is true as well, when comparing defenses in both editions. 3.5 featured a host of 'immunity' effects that typically had to be painstakingly stripped before players' saves could be targetted - which leaves nothing to chance. Extremely high AC builds existed that reduced monster hit chances to 20% or less on average. This is mostly impossible in 4E.
When luck does turn on you eventually in 3.5 is when you can fall back on the numerous 'luck-free' solutions I mentioned before. Thus the 'swinginess' of 4E over 3.5 is a combination of these factors.
You are correct however, in stating that this generally only happens after you go up a few levels. The lower levels in 3.5 were a kind of Russian roulette with D20s, but not necessarily any more so than in 4E.
I dislike this aspect of the 4E game because it's a loss of control. Players are held hostage by the D20 that much more, unable to compensate to the same degree with superior choices. Already I've found myself gravitating unstoppably towards the few choices in 4E that can mitigate bad luck streaks and 'swinginess' - sustained auto-damage, healing solutions and Effect based powers mostly.
Nail
First Post
So are you saying that 3.5e minimized randomness (as compared to 4e)?
In 3.xe, if you failed 1 save, you could die.
In 3.xe, if you lost initiative, you could die before you went.
In 3.xe, if you rolled poor HD, your PC was doomed.
Etc.
As often as not, the 3.xe DM could plan for the PCs "luck-free" solutions, a re-introduce luck into combat.
In 3.ex, it was inevitable that the PCs gravitated to the "best choices" too! I'm not seeing a difference here.
Most combats in 4e take many, many rounds, with lots of dice rolls. Many combats in 3.xe take very few rounds, with few dice rolls. It seems to me the more dice rolls, the less "swingy".
burntgerbil
Explorer
My group began playing like the day after we all got the rules. One of the other players began a side game a few weeks ago - and the characters we built then were Vastly better. I had switched from a non-effective dwarf warlock (+5 to hit@ 1st lvl) to Halfling rogue (+9 to hit Ref@1st) and it seems like I was guaranteed damage for the party every round. This really seemed to help with morale when the fighter was missing but still helping me get the flank. This changed their tactics and eventually my fighter partner told me that it was the first time in a while that he felt like the action in combat was dramatic and exciting - his contributions were now more than a sword swing or two a round.
I think That morale of the players has something to do with it also - Even if you won't always hit, you can try to hit and cooperate to help your allies do so. It was in our first game that the party strung together 2 back to back rounds of 5 pc's missing that things were not fun. Now the group knows that I will probably hit - and this usually keeps spirits up - even when the dice are down.
I think That morale of the players has something to do with it also - Even if you won't always hit, you can try to hit and cooperate to help your allies do so. It was in our first game that the party strung together 2 back to back rounds of 5 pc's missing that things were not fun. Now the group knows that I will probably hit - and this usually keeps spirits up - even when the dice are down.
If the DM rolls well in one fight then it's not evidence that combat as a whole is swingy. With the range of outcomes on a d20 swingyness will occur in some fights but that's not an indication of swingyness on the system as a whole.So if the DM rolls well, the players are losers who have failed the teamwork test?
If the DM is doing well in every fight then either he has phenomenal luck, loaded dice, or is better at the tactical side of the game. At the very least, the players should be looking to leverage flanking opportunities and leader power boosts, often together. If the DM manages similar tactics and the players do not then it may apear that the DM is lucky when in reality he makes his own luck.
Ds Da Man
First Post
Actually I 've found that combat seems to always swing towards the players advantage. I have found that I'm usually buffing some creatures to keep the party from blowing through stuff. Heck between sleep, dragons breath, and the fighter blowing off his 6D6 daily, things tend to get waxed fast. I have put the dragonborn paladin down alot, but thats adding some buffs to the creatures.
