Herobizkit
Adventurer
Title says it all. I think I get the general ideal of what a 'swingy' combat may look like, but I need some clarification, with examples. Please advise. 
Please define 'swingy'
- Thread starter Herobizkit
- Start date
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
A common comment about 4e combat is that the combat's result can be determined several rounds before the combat's end - the result becomes apparent, but it takes a little while to get there.
A "swingy" combat often involves powers or abilities that can make a huge, unexpected difference. This can allow one side to pull out a victory even when they appear to be badly losing.
I find swingy combats to generally be more exciting, and more deadly, than non-swingy combat.
A "swingy" combat often involves powers or abilities that can make a huge, unexpected difference. This can allow one side to pull out a victory even when they appear to be badly losing.
I find swingy combats to generally be more exciting, and more deadly, than non-swingy combat.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Subject to sudden, unpredictable changes of fortune.
Imagine a 3.X fight between an Ogre and a party including a wizard with Sleep Memorized. If the wizard wins initiative and the Ogre fails his save, game over. OR, the Ogre can get a lucky hit, take out the fighter in one shot, and then move adjacent to the wizard, making it impossible for the wizard to cast without taking an AoO.
Swingy.
Imagine a 3.X fight between an Ogre and a party including a wizard with Sleep Memorized. If the wizard wins initiative and the Ogre fails his save, game over. OR, the Ogre can get a lucky hit, take out the fighter in one shot, and then move adjacent to the wizard, making it impossible for the wizard to cast without taking an AoO.
Swingy.
Cerebral Paladin
First Post
I agree with PCat's description. I also agree that swingy fights are more exciting and more deadly than non-swingy fights. The other aspect is that they can be more frustrating-- swingy also often implies a substantial luck component, which can be frustrating. For example, monsters with high defenses but low hit points will tend to make for a swingier fight-- if the PCs can connect, they can end the fight quickly, but if they roll poorly, they can get killed. The trouble is that that can make the players have a strong feeling of "if only our rolls were better we would have done fine," which can be a source of annoyance.
(Of course, frustration from periods of really bad rolls are inevitable in any game where dice are important to the resolution system, but swingier fights within that increase the risk of frustration.)
(Of course, frustration from periods of really bad rolls are inevitable in any game where dice are important to the resolution system, but swingier fights within that increase the risk of frustration.)
Snoweel
First Post
In any opposed contest, increasing the random element (swinginess) tends to benefit the underdog (usually the monsters in D&D).
Regarding the common observation (which I share) that 4e fights are usually determined several rounds before the loser runs out of hit points, this is the perfect opportunity for the losing side to surrender/flee/play dead.
Defeated enemies who are still alive provide a lot of roleplaying opportunity and story possibilities.
And really, besides undead, constructs and demons, who fights to the death anyway?
Regarding the common observation (which I share) that 4e fights are usually determined several rounds before the loser runs out of hit points, this is the perfect opportunity for the losing side to surrender/flee/play dead.
Defeated enemies who are still alive provide a lot of roleplaying opportunity and story possibilities.
And really, besides undead, constructs and demons, who fights to the death anyway?
pawsplay
Hero
Swingy isn't necessarily a more random result, so much as the difference in outcoming between winning big and losing big. In a non-swingy situation, winning big might be getting out with only scratches, while losing big might be taking substantial damage and having to use up valuable party resources. In a swingy situation, you could be looking at the difference between untouched and TPK. Luck based vs. predetermined has a relationship with swinginess, but it is not precisely the same thing. A real life fencing bout is an example of a very swingy, mostly skill-based contest; victory is a fraction of a second, and one touch could end it.
Dice4Hire
First Post
Well, to me 'swingy' is a function of spells and abilities that are very powerful for the level of the encounter.
A good one is Entangle, in 3.x
If the druid gets this off on most enemy monster groups, and the party has bows, well, the fight is largely over.
Save and die spells lead to a lot of swing. Roll a 20 and combat goes on, even a huge dragon with a great fort save can roll a '1' against a disintigrate and the fight is over.
Ditto with grappling by many 3.5 monsters. It grabs you and the fight is over, or becomes very difficult for the grabee.
One of the strengths of 4E (and a core design element) is that it is less swingy, and it is a lot harder for a bad dice roll to ruin the player's fun. Yes, it is great when you disintigrate a foe, but less fun when he does it to you.
As a DM I always disliked how swingy 3.x was, though I like the system a lot, and still play it. It made it a lot harder to balance encounters, when a single spell could cause things to break down. With 4E, this is less of a problem.
A good one is Entangle, in 3.x
If the druid gets this off on most enemy monster groups, and the party has bows, well, the fight is largely over.
Save and die spells lead to a lot of swing. Roll a 20 and combat goes on, even a huge dragon with a great fort save can roll a '1' against a disintigrate and the fight is over.
Ditto with grappling by many 3.5 monsters. It grabs you and the fight is over, or becomes very difficult for the grabee.
One of the strengths of 4E (and a core design element) is that it is less swingy, and it is a lot harder for a bad dice roll to ruin the player's fun. Yes, it is great when you disintigrate a foe, but less fun when he does it to you.
As a DM I always disliked how swingy 3.x was, though I like the system a lot, and still play it. It made it a lot harder to balance encounters, when a single spell could cause things to break down. With 4E, this is less of a problem.
RangerWickett
Legend
One of my friends prefers a variant term: "Balanced High."
Compare a fight between two boxers with gloves and bits, versus a fight between two trained swordsmen. In each case, the opponents are evenly matched, but in the boxing match, any given hit has a slim chance of taking out the other guy. In the sword duel every moment, every exchange of attack-parry-riposte is much more fraught with uncertainty, and so more filled with drama.
This friend of mine ran a d20 Conan game where people could swing giant swords that would kill you in two hits, but you likewise could kill them in two hits. Attacking first held a great advantage, as did finding ways to get in more attacks than your opponent. In 4e, by contrast, we're usually fine taking our licks, because we know that a single monster usually won't kill us for at least 4 turns, and we can heal mid-combat pretty easily.
My group generally prefers the former style, where combat is swift. Another DM, though, prefers more tactical combat, and since 4e combat usually lasts longer, it gives him more opportunities to develop tactics. But you can get a 'balanced high' fight even in 4e. Brutes work well for this, and if you make the whole party strikers, with no leaders, combat tend to rush toward climax.
What I don't like are fights where one person can win the fight in one round due to a good roll. Sleep and similar spells in 3e weren't "Oh crap, we're in a tight spot, time to do something awesome." They were "Well, that was short." That's not fun.
So swingy = 3e save or die.
Balanced low = 4e with lots of defenders and leaders.
Balanced high = a Stygian warrior bearing down upon you with a blood-slick tulwar
Compare a fight between two boxers with gloves and bits, versus a fight between two trained swordsmen. In each case, the opponents are evenly matched, but in the boxing match, any given hit has a slim chance of taking out the other guy. In the sword duel every moment, every exchange of attack-parry-riposte is much more fraught with uncertainty, and so more filled with drama.
This friend of mine ran a d20 Conan game where people could swing giant swords that would kill you in two hits, but you likewise could kill them in two hits. Attacking first held a great advantage, as did finding ways to get in more attacks than your opponent. In 4e, by contrast, we're usually fine taking our licks, because we know that a single monster usually won't kill us for at least 4 turns, and we can heal mid-combat pretty easily.
My group generally prefers the former style, where combat is swift. Another DM, though, prefers more tactical combat, and since 4e combat usually lasts longer, it gives him more opportunities to develop tactics. But you can get a 'balanced high' fight even in 4e. Brutes work well for this, and if you make the whole party strikers, with no leaders, combat tend to rush toward climax.
What I don't like are fights where one person can win the fight in one round due to a good roll. Sleep and similar spells in 3e weren't "Oh crap, we're in a tight spot, time to do something awesome." They were "Well, that was short." That's not fun.
So swingy = 3e save or die.
Balanced low = 4e with lots of defenders and leaders.
Balanced high = a Stygian warrior bearing down upon you with a blood-slick tulwar
Wik
First Post
Yeah, swinginess is really one of those "Season to taste" sort of things. I generally dislike how "un-swingy" 4e can be at times, but then I disliked how 3e handled it even more. Generally, a good example of a swingy fight is when the players are all standing up high-fiving each other because of a run of good luck in a tough fight. However, it usually winds up where the PCs get destroyed by monsters of a lower-level because of a round or two of bad rolls.
Similar Threads
