Combat very swingy

[nyhotep]

The 1d20 swingyness problem was noted in the boardgame "runebound". In the second edition, they changed to 2d10 (and adjusted the bonuses accordingly).

If anyone wants to use critical hits (and fumbles) using 2d10, the 5% value lies between 18 and 19 and between 5 and 4. In other words, an 18 or more would be like rolling a 20. (Actually a 6% chance rather than 5%).

 

[Regicide]

People who find combat swingy in 4E are often the guys who fail the teamwork test. Of course, nothing can be done to help a player who can't roll above a 5 all evening.

So if the DM rolls well, the players are losers who have failed the teamwork test?

4E should be less swingy at low levels, the main reasons are that PCs have more HPs and they fixed critical hits. On top of that, PCs also tend to have a larger selection of powers and a greater amount of healing available to fall back on.

At high levels though all bets are off. Although there are fewer save-or-dies to deal with, players will have less healing available and fewer HPs than their 3E counterparts, and have less defensive options as well meaning they can often be taking higher relative damage. At high level 3E could be extrememly swingy for unbalanced parties, don't have a mage to deathward and mindblank the party, expect to fall over dead every couple encounters, but prepared parties had pretty predictable combats.

 

[OchreJelly]

If anything I think 4E is less swingy than earlier editions, especially at low level play. The following things just don’t exist, or are less prevalent in 4E:
- the classic example of the Orc critting with a great axe against a level 1 char.
- less save or die / save or suck scenarios in 4E.
- shorter durations of the save / suck scenarios in 4E.
- super buffed damage.
- combats typically lasting 6-7 rounds in 4E, vs. 1-2 rounds leaves more room to recover from bad luck.
- action points as a recovery resource for bad luck. N/A to previous editions.
- every character has the ability to heal to some extent so you are less reliant on the misfortunes of one PC at the table. Possible in previous editions but usually only thru items / potions.

 

[Victim]

Could the impression of swinginess come from creatures having just 1 attack/round in 4e, and not dealing any damage on a miss?

Consider a 3e monster with multiple attacks, such as a pit fiend or the tarrasque (assume it power attacks for 20). In any round where it can make a full attack, some attacks should hit and others miss, but at the end of the round, you should still have done some damage. So that round of attacks was not a total loss.

But in 4e, you either hit for good damage, or miss for none at all (baring dailies). Same for monsters. There is no "in between".

I agree that having only 1 attack under most conditions puts a lot of weight on that one roll. Especially for attacks that have secondary targets that require an initial hit before you can even roll the attacks.

I think this problem is more noteworthy at higher levels (especially at mid-high paragon, since monsters require lots of damage to drop, but at wills haven't upgraded yet). Character power is weighted mostly toward their special encounter or daily abilities over at wills. So a poor roll on a limited power isn't just a chance to waste that turn, it also wastes that power. And it makes the fight take longer and/or uses more resources, since the deficet between At will hits and encounter hits will have to made up somehow. If the fight takes longer, then the monsters presumeably do more damage, thus expending more surges. Or the PCs can use more dailies than originally planned to hopefully close that gap quickly.

 

[DLichen]

Swinginess isn't coming from d20s, bad rolls happen. My problem is that the designed damage output of an encounter is supposedly (max damage * .5). So max damage is pretty high compared to total hp. If you have 4 monsters hit and all 4 hit instead of the expected 2, the actual damage output compared to the expected is quite high. It's true that PCs will usually survive the fight, but the drain on resources encourages the short work day that was the problem in 3e.

Of course, the problem seems to be coming from a few select monsters that aren't expected to hit too much or something, so a list of particularly swingy monsters seems like a better idea than switching to 2d10.


3e is swingy around levels 1-5, but combat as a whole was kinda wonky with 3e with mages in the mix I'm not going to even try to analyze what's going on. Fights tended to go mage: sleep/other save or die, fighters easily mop up remains.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

Swinginess of combat is a function of the average importance of each attack. The more attacks it takes to put someone down, the less random the outcome will be. With the exception of a few dailies, a 4e fight is unlikely to be turned around by the outcome of a single roll.

 

[Moorcrys]

It's a little more swingy in my opinion than 3.x, but what I really noticed about 4e is that the party is brutalized if they don't cooperate and fight tactically. We've had a few combats where we've rolled very poorly but squeaked by because of good tactical fighting. We also TPK'd in one of our first combats because we rolled poorly and weren't fighting efficiently as a team. 4e seems to really punish you severely for tactical mistakes -- much more than 3.x where it always seemed like we had a few more tricks up our sleeves to deal with mistakes or a weak player.

 

[KidSnide]

I found that 4e combat is less swingy on the whole, but -- in some combats -- there are a few rolls that really swing the battle one way or the other. The right warlord daily power can really be the make-or-break for a battle. Of course, a well organized party goes to efforts to make sure those rolls take place with combat advantage and rightious brand (or whatever else is available). But still - if everyone has manuevered to give that +6 bonus to the battle changing power - that natural 1 is rough.

 

[Syrsuro]

Swinginess of combat is a function of the average importance of each attack. The more attacks it takes to put someone down, the less random the outcome will be. With the exception of a few dailies, a 4e fight is unlikely to be turned around by the outcome of a single roll.

I do think the Dailies can be swingy, although the consolation prize effects you get if they miss make up for that somewhat. (And if, as my group did, they crit on two dailies in the first round when fighting a solo, you can really see that swinginess in action, although that has more to do with crit swinginess then daily swinginess, perhaps).

But I am considering allowing them to spend an action point to reroll a missed daily. It doesn't seem as if that will have a huge effect overall, and it will reduce some of the let down when you save up your big daily for that key encounter and then miss.

But then, I'm possibly biased since the first two times I ever attempted a daily I missed. Badly.

Carl

 

[Nail]

Swinginess of combat is a function of the average importance of each attack.

Exactly.

In 4e, it's hard to kill a target in just one round. Yes in can happen, but much less so than in 3.xe. Ergo "less swingy".

BTW: the orginal poster meant "one character went unconscious", rather than "one character died" after one round, right? You have to take massive amounts of damage after you've reached 0 hp in order to be dead-dead.

 

[SuperGnome]

One of my friends has successfully petitioned to be allowed to roll 3d6 instead of d20 for all his rolls. Whereas before he had an unnatural ability to roll below 6 90% of the time, now he averages more like 9 (which is still below average, but good enough to hit from time to time).

Wait it out and reap the rewards or buy new dice... wow!

 

[Malicea]

Exactly.

In 4e, it's hard to kill a target in just one round. Yes in can happen, but much less so than in 3.xe. Ergo "less swingy".

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]

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...

 

[essenbee]

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.

I suggest dispensing with dice altogether. Houserule that PCs always hit and monsters and NPCs always miss.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

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.

 

[Malicea]

I think you are overemphasizing how often this worked in 3.5.

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]

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.)

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.

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.

As often as not, the 3.xe DM could plan for the PCs "luck-free" solutions, a re-introduce luck into combat.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Trevelyan]

So if the DM rolls well, the players are losers who have failed the teamwork test?

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.

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]

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.