Please define 'swingy'

[MrGrenadine]

Swingy combats are more likely in games where there are opportunities to do huge amounts of damage or completely incapacitate enemies with one action.

The amount of swinginess in any system can be increased or decreased with a few simple adjustments: Too swingy? For casters, add casting time to SoD spells, or structure encounters in waves so "easy win" spells will be burnt in the first wave leaving the party to rely on tactics to survive after that. For melee fighters who can do massive damage on a lucky roll, adding DR to monsters who you want to protect would work, or a magic item that can negate a critical a day.


My opinion is that swingy is fun, (even though it can work against a party too), and that it doesn't negate the need for good tactics: good tactics will offset the effects of bad luck, and will enhance the benefits of good luck, while bad tactics could be saved by good luck, or be made even worse by bad.


Off-topic: Wow, is there no topic that can be discussed without dragging in edition preference?

 

[pawsplay]

Swingy combat tends to reward luck more than good planning, and bad planning is less punished than bad luck.

Whereas I would say swingy combat rewards good planning more than good encounter design. Swingy combats and non-swingy combats both require good planning; in swingy combats, it's "Did we forget anything? Is there some angle we can work?" and in non-swingy combats it's, "Is everyone loaded and ready to whoopass?"

I like a mix, which I think is a strength of 3e over 4e or AD&D, if you prefer a mix of combat types. Sometimes it's "Time to beat down some orcs," other times it's, "ohnoes a mindflayer with an ogre minion!"

 

[blargney the second]

I'm finding as we get higher level in our 4e game that there are a very few daily powers that can be *almost* swingy. The rogue daily 9 called Knockout, for example. The bard has one too, although I don't remember its name.

The vast majority of 4e's dailies turn the grind up to 11, which is its own kind of fun.
-blarg

 

[Victim]

Whereas I would say swingy combat rewards good planning more than good encounter design. Swingy combats and non-swingy combats both require good planning; in swingy combats, it's "Did we forget anything? Is there some angle we can work?" and in non-swingy combats it's, "Is everyone loaded and ready to whoopass?"

I like a mix, which I think is a strength of 3e over 4e or AD&D, if you prefer a mix of combat types. Sometimes it's "Time to beat down some orcs," other times it's, "ohnoes a mindflayer with an ogre minion!"

I'd say that swingy combat rewards advance planning, while non swingy combat rewards more ability to adjust within the encounter. The way to go in a swingy system is get things to swing your way for a bit - and then exploit that edge ruthlessly to win quickly before the tide can reverse. Often, by the time it's clear that Plan B is needed, someone is dead.

For example, take the mind flayer - very dangerous with its stun, charm, and grapple abilities. OTOH, besides SR, it's somewhat lacking in toughness. Sometimes, it is "Ohnoes, a mind flayer!" as it stuns much of the group, charms one of the people who saved, and then starts grappling the other guy. But more often it was like "heh, a mind flayer. Full Attack/Rapid: shoot/shoot/shoot. Charge. Dead." Or group with good Will running magic circle will mostly fend of the stun, block mind control, and then just pound it down. Most of the time, there's no real menace - it's just another monster that you answer with a spike of no SR damage.

 

[Storminator]

Swingy is when your eight 5th level PCs attack attack a dozen stock orcs and 2 PCs die and three more are knocked out before the fight ends. Critical hitting Greataxes FTW!

PS

 

[pawsplay]

Swingy is when your eight 5th level PCs attack attack a dozen stock orcs and 2 PCs die and three more are knocked out before the fight ends. Critical hitting Greataxes FTW!

PS

Yeah, orcs with greataxes were my first introduction to, "Third edition ain't your granddaddy's D&D." Third level party, two KOs, fortunately no deaths.

 

[fba827]

imagine a pendulum swinging, with each side representing the balance of power in a given combat.

during a "non swingy combat" the pendulum swings moderately back and forth from one side to the other as each person goes.

in a swingy combat, a spell/power/ability/'trick' is used that swings the pendulum to one extreme or the other, meaning that the opposing side is all but done for unless it can pull an equally drastic ability off - thus the pendulum swings vigorously from one side to the other rather than moderate swinging.

(just my take on it, everyone else's opinion may vary )

 

[JoeGKushner]

Whereas I would say swingy combat rewards good planning more than good encounter design. Swingy combats and non-swingy combats both require good planning; in swingy combats, it's "Did we forget anything? Is there some angle we can work?" and in non-swingy combats it's, "Is everyone loaded and ready to whoopass?"

How so? The combat rewards of good planning can be completely neutralized by bad roles on the party's side and good roles on the enemy's side. Where is the reward?

 

[Cadfan]

How so? The combat rewards of good planning can be completely neutralized by bad roles on the party's side and good roles on the enemy's side. Where is the reward?

I believe he's referring to the "figure out that you're going to fight a creature with death magic and then cast death ward and win" theory of tactics. You negate the swingyness of combat by simply trumping the battle.

 

[pawsplay]

How so? The combat rewards of good planning can be completely neutralized by bad roles on the party's side and good roles on the enemy's side. Where is the reward?

That could happen in a non-swingy combat, too. The results are simply not as dramatic. The point is that in a swingy combat, most ideal tactics involve minimizing random, uncontrolled events.