Please define 'swingy'

[FireLance]

Going from an example of an obvious DM screwjob (32 level 6 wizards at 400 feet at night who all have prior knowledge of the PCs' route, line of sight to ground zero, can all target the same point, and the PCs are conveniently walking in fireball formation?) to "obviously failed to achieve" balance requires epic-level ranks in Jump to Conclusions.

Not really. You can get the same effect with the Make Sarcastic Comment feat.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The interesting thing about the example BlackBrrd mentioned is that I have experienced the underlying problem...

We once encountered some kind of monster (maybe some kind of demon, devil or undead or something "templated"?) that had Fireball as a spell-like abilities. Or rather we encountered 3 or 4 of them. They won Initiative, and despite my wizard saving against some of them, he was still in the negatives afterwards. Of course, if I had expected 3 fireball-throwing monsters, I would have a Resist Energy (Fire) going, but we were not running through the City of Brass or a Red Dragon lair or any other area where Fire was more likely than any other type of energy...

 

[I'm A Banana]

In 3.5, at level 16 you are ambushed, at night from 400' range 32 level 6 wizards casting fireball. That is about 32*6d6 = 32*6*3.5 = 672 average damage, or 336 if you save for half. The encounter is EL16 so an appropriate challenge. The whole party will probably die in the surprise-round...
...
This is typical 3.x encounters that are totally broken because the system is so swingy.

My experience certainly varies, generally because I followed that bit in the DMG that expressly recommended that CR's stay within a few points of the EL. 4e has a similar blurb, and I think you'll find that a ten-level disparity between PC's and their enemies would still be pretty much un-workable in 4e (though for different reasons).

But this is a pretty good example of how 3e, much like the older games where combat wasn't necessarily something you wanted to get into, inherited the "Boy Scout Problem": You must always be prepared for everything. Back in 1e, the jokes with the 11-foot poles and hireling armada and the like poked fun at this. 3e inherited many of 1e's more deadly motifs, though the joke was usually more along the lines of "never camp within 20' of each other out in the open," but the sentiment was the same. If you don't prepare, you will be dead, and the DM can always kill you if he wants. For certain styles of game, this is totally OK, even great, since combat isn't their big thing.

I think for most, though, it tends to be frustrating. Which is why I'd advocate swingy without being binary. Even a rule like "If you are reduced to 0 hp, you have one round before you go unconscious" would ameliorate this almost entirely. Push it to the edge, but not over. Don't let one round decide the combat, give the other side time to respond, but don't be afraid to FORCE the other side to respond. IMXP, in 4e, the decisions don't carry much weight or importance, since they largely do the same thing, and this is mostly because 4e wants to jettison most of the swing. Which can be an issue if I'm looking for dramatic tension on every round (which is something I'm looking for more often if my combats tend to be fewer, and more narrative, rather than more, and more simulation).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fireball example is just one of many which supports my assertion that there is no objective way to determine efficacy of builds, since the DM can always design an encounter to screw you over.

(I did much the same with a school of magic, and a bunch of 1st level mages who had just learned Magic Missile...)

 

[Elric]

The fireball example is just one of many which supports my assertion that there is no objective way to determine efficacy of builds, since the DM can always design an encounter to screw you over.

Right. People forget that the DM could always make the monsters/encounters more difficult for a character just because that character was (seemingly) more powerful against typical monsters/encounters.

For example, taking Expertise to boost attack bonus could make your character worse off if the DM increases monster defenses by more to compensate. By comparison, if your character takes some other feat, perhaps one that doesn't affect combat directly (e.g., Skill Focus: Diplomacy), the DM could put you up against easier monsters, making your character more combat effective!

 

[Garthanos]

Right. People forget that the DM could always make the monsters/encounters more difficult for a character just because that character was (seemingly) more powerful against typical monsters/encounters.

For example, taking Expertise to boost attack bonus could make your character worse off if the DM increases monster defenses by more to compensate. By comparison, if your character takes some other feat, perhaps one that doesn't affect combat directly (e.g., Skill Focus: Diplomacy), the DM could put you up against easier monsters, making your character more combat effective!

Yup but if one character is over potent compared to others in your group? those options can become messy ...

 

[Garthanos]

If you don't prepare, you will be dead, and the DM can always kill you if he wants. For certain styles of game, this is totally OK, even great, since combat isn't their big thing.

Can be ok, but most of my favorite novels and movies do not feature cowards and paranoid schitzophrenics either... I advocate a balance ;-). I mean "Walk a few yards tapping with your 11 foot poles and listen at every doors and intersections all day if you like till the ear mites do you in - cause the dm got tired of it" can get silly... as does "<insert monty python troup /> Charge ...tink tink ooops... runaway! runaway".

I watched people pull out standard laundry lists of cautious behaviour .... that were too boring to enumerate on ... and tap them when the dm asks what they do next.

 

[Elric]

Yup but if one character is over potent compared to others in your group? those options can become messy ...

The DM doesn't have to tell the players that the creature's AC is 30 for all of them, all the time. He can just mentally calculate "well, this character took Weapon Expertise for +2 to hit, so I'll make its AC two higher against him." How are they going to know that it doesn't have a printed ability giving it +2 to defenses under certain circumstances?

A good DM can deal with the issue.

 

[Garthanos]

The DM doesn't have to tell the players that the creature's AC is 30 for all of them, all the time. He can just mentally calculate "well, this character took Weapon Expertise for +2 to hit, so I'll make its AC two higher against him." How are they going to know that it doesn't have a printed ability giving it +2 to defenses under certain circumstances?

A good DM can deal with the issue.

I think subtle 4e variations in ability of that sort are only worth worrying about when there is real problems coping with the critters.. that +2 will be ignoreable if the situation is mostly under control. When it isnt? he could be hitting three times as often as others but they will be glad if he is... cause they are seriously outclassed. Better hope retreat is on the option board.

 

[Runestar]

The DM doesn't have to tell the players that the creature's AC is 30 for all of them, all the time. He can just mentally calculate "well, this character took Weapon Expertise for +2 to hit, so I'll make its AC two higher against him." How are they going to know that it doesn't have a printed ability giving it +2 to defenses under certain circumstances?

A good DM can deal with the issue.

Doesn't mean he should do it.

This solution just stinks, IMO. If you are going to let the optimized player have as good a chance of hitting as the non-optimized player, might as well tell him up front so he can take another feat instead which would actually do something for him.