Please define 'swingy'

[Dannyalcatraz]

Swingy Combat: Any combat in which the participants put all of their armor and weapons into a bowl, then draw out the same at random and pair off to fight.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

And how does that exactly work on the dice rolling aspect? That's the part I'm questioning.

Now the death ward thing that another poster mentioned to cancel the death abilities, that to me isn't 'swingy' combat. That's being prepared for a potentially huge fight and praying that they don't successfully dispel your magic (which I believe Pathfinder put the nerf on.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

IMHO swingy combat means more danger and excitement. There is nothing worse than being at the mid point of a combat and realizing it as such.

If a fight feels like it has a defined beginning, middle, and end then it is predictable and thus less exciting. The excitement from a fast paced combat knowing that at any given moment it might end for better or worse is more satisfying. For related reasons it is why I find round by round initiative more exciting than turn based. Turn based initiative makes me feel like I just took a number in line at the post office. I can see who is ahead of me and behind me in line and we all wait patiently to act in our appointed turn. Yawn.

Swingy is chaos and confusion, uncertainty and excitement. The bloodied condition brings the explicit definition of the halfway point that much more to the forefront.

I don't mind the occasional battle being over in the blink of an eye due to either good/poor planning, luck, or a combination of both. I don't feature combat in my game as a time filler. Combat is the means to an end and a short exciting combat feels more satisfying than one drawn out expressly for the purpose of everyone getting to flex and show off cool moves.

 

[Kraydak]

And how does that exactly work on the dice rolling aspect? That's the part I'm questioning.

Now the death ward thing that another poster mentioned to cancel the death abilities, that to me isn't 'swingy' combat. That's being prepared for a potentially huge fight and praying that they don't successfully dispel your magic (which I believe Pathfinder put the nerf on.)

While I would argue that the the Death Ward aspect is a very minor portion of "swingyness rewards tactics", it can be used to illustrate the point. The *reward or penalty* of good/bad tactics is much larger in swingy combat.

Carefully maneuvering to rob an elite of a round's worth of attacks in 4e? Valuable, to be sure, but unlikely to have a large effect. Carefully maneuvering to restrict the BBEG Giant of a Full Attack opportunity (still leaving him with a single attack!) in 3e? A matter of life and death. The value of modifying a single event goes down as the number of events goes up. Swingy combats have fewer events, and so the value of good tactics goes up.

In the rocket-tag limit of swingyness, the only defense you have in using tactics to get the first attack, and the value of good tactics is nigh infinite. (and you are guaranteed an early TPK, these aren't mutually exclusive)

 

[Set]

Hmm. I must be doing something wrong, then, because that's exactly how Sleep was in the last 3e campaign I played in where it saw any use. We were a party of elves (with typical high Dex and low Str), and it was only when our melee types were getting totally pwned by hulking brutes that our wizard would break out the Sleep. Several times, it was the only reason we survived.

And that campaign is typical of my 3e experiences.

There's a difference between playing the game, and gaming the game.

Your Wizard was using his spells conservatively, not knowing whether or not any given encounter would be the last for the day, and not wanting to fire off all of his bullets in the first fight of the day. He wasn't metagaming.

Quite a few of the 'Wizards are OP' threads start out from a different assumption, that the spellcaster is willing to use Quicken, Arcane Spellsurge, etc. to blow off two or three spells per round, and blow all of his high level slots on metamagic enhanced versions of his low-level spells, just to cast them faster, as if the magic was burning him up on the inside and he just had to spit it out as fast as humanly possible.

There are even assumptions that spellcasters should have every buff, ever, on the entire party, including multiple flavors of Resist Energy, Overland Flight, Greater Magic Weapon, etc. and still throw multiple spells a round. These thought-exercise wizards think nothing of casting a Quickened Shield with a 5th level slot, to get a +4 to their AC for a few rounds, because they aren't actually playing the game, they are just spouting off about how OP spellcasters are on a messageboard, which requires their hypothetical Wizard to do stuff in a vacuum that would be insanely dumb in an actual game-setting, where they might have a very real need for a 5th level spell 10 rounds later.

The hyperbole and overwrought purple prose works against the valid points they do have, and makes their arguments easy to just ignore completely.

 

[Garthanos]

For swingier conflicts you have less chance to determine who will win before its too late and the opposite is true for less swingy. Choice opportunities are increased for less swingy, you have more decision points available. The fact that you conserved your power move intelligently (something that now every character type has a form of instead of just the wizard/spell caster!!!!) ... may go un-useful because a random die roll (critical hit for instance) made your intelligence and planning meaningless.

Edit - Note yes its also bad for it to be too easy to determine who will win.

 

[Runestar]

There are even assumptions that spellcasters should have every buff, ever, on the entire party, including multiple flavors of Resist Energy, Overland Flight, Greater Magic Weapon, etc.

To be fair, these spells all have fairly long durations. At higher lvs (~10+), wizards can easily keep them up all day, especially with extend spell, so there is little reason not to cast them at the start of each adventuring day. It is actually quite efficient for the slot expended.

They also represent a great way of milking your otherwise unused lower-lv slots. Plus, chained extended greater magic weapon is just so sexy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

While I would argue that the the Death Ward aspect is a very minor portion of "swingyness rewards tactics", it can be used to illustrate the point. The *reward or penalty* of good/bad tactics is much larger in swingy combat.

Carefully maneuvering to rob an elite of a round's worth of attacks in 4e? Valuable, to be sure, but unlikely to have a large effect. Carefully maneuvering to restrict the BBEG Giant of a Full Attack opportunity (still leaving him with a single attack!) in 3e? A matter of life and death. The value of modifying a single event goes down as the number of events goes up. Swingy combats have fewer events, and so the value of good tactics goes up.

In the rocket-tag limit of swingyness, the only defense you have in using tactics to get the first attack, and the value of good tactics is nigh infinite. (and you are guaranteed an early TPK, these aren't mutually exclusive)

On the other hand, luck can sometimes render even the best tactical play meaningless in a "swingy" system.

To use your 3e giant example, it's still possible that even if you tumble back to avoid a full attack, the giant will charge, crit for double/triple damage, and kill you anyway. Chance can prevail over the use of sound tactics.

Note that I'm not saying I think a "swingy" system is inferior or any such nonsense. IMO, "swingy" isn't objectively better or worse than "grindy"; it's just different.

 

[Stalker0]

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?

Its also the factor that swingy combats are more dangerous, so groups have more incentive to plan.

In many 4e combats, the risk of death of very low, so you can just charge in, kick some butt, and not have a care in the world.

If you know the enemy you face could kill you with a single swing (ala full power attacking greataxe weilding barb in 3e) then you may want to plan your tactics better. Bad rolls may still screw your plan, but you at least had a plan.

 

[Garthanos]

Its also the factor that swingy combats are more dangerous, so groups have more incentive to plan..

And still those plans are more easily undermined by cranky dice..

It is a spectrum and adjustable ... give monsters more critical hit capability (many don't come with any at all in 4e) and boom, you just made conflict more swingy.