Please define 'swingy'

[Fanaelialae]

Oh its still swingy and quite unpredictable ... whether it will take 5 or 25 or 12.... the point is non swingy does not intrinsically take longer... you loose N hit points per round and your adversary loose X hitpoints around has zero swing. Tie those damage to to hit rolls and attack failures will make it take much longer.

I think, all other things being equal, swingy must at least have the potential to be shorter. Save or die is a perfect example of a swingy mechanic.

Assume that you have two almost identical games, except that one has SoD and the other doesn't. Also assume that it takes 4 rounds to kill someone using damage in both games. Assuming that SoD is available as a resource, the SoD game must have at least some shorter combats, because it has a mechanic for killing an enemy in 1 round rather than 4. Even if the odds of avoiding the SoD are only 25% (and therefore the average rounds of both systems are the same), the swingier game will have shorter combats now and again because the SoD user will have a string of good fortune and his adversaries will all fail their saves.

People have been presuming since 4e has a heartier buffer for the heros and also reduced swing elements ... that these are intrinsically connected.

I have to disagree here. Giving the heroes a heartier buffer is an anti-swing element. A level 1 wizard in 3e might have 4 hp and be taken down by a single attack from a goblin. The same wizard in 4e might have over 20 hp and will certainly not fall to a single attack from a goblin (not even from a crit). The difference in damage between the two goblins isn't exactly huge, with the 4e gob actually dealing more. 3e is clearly the swingier system in this example.

Keep in mind that I think using the term grindy when describing 4e is a bit of a misnomer. 4e is less swingy than 3e to be certain, but there's still a fair bit of swing (a lucky string of crits will almost certainly swing combat in the party's favor). Hence, I think the term "less swingy" (when compared to previous editions) is a better fit.

 

[Victim]

Well, it works like this. A spell that kills people is a pretty swingy effect. Death ward is a way of preparing for it. Thus, preparation is very important for such a battle.

And if you don't have it up in advance, you might be dead before you know you'll need it. Besides that, in a short duration fight, it's a huge loss to spend your main action throwing up a spell that you could have done earlier - so it had better have a broad effect if you do (like Mass versions of spells).

 

[Garthanos]

I think, all other things being equal, swingy must at least have the potential to be shorter. Save or die is a perfect example of a swingy mechanic.

Requiring a to hit..is at most primitive the first swingy effect but it swings towards defense ( I have seen some interesting conflict resolution systems without a to hit roll and no the same thing doest happen every round).

Basically yes if you want an "average" of the same yeah there needs to be a potential for a shorter time, but not all swing effects need individually be something to make resolution faster.

I have to disagree here. Giving the heroes a heartier buffer is an anti-swing element.

hmmm yeah... think I had a momentary lapse there.

Hence, I think the term "less swingy" (when compared to previous editions) is a better fit.

agreed on that part too.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Mark Chance wrote:
My guess is that it involves Gene Krupa.

Ooh, I think I have me some new music to buy.
ta for that.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, it works like this. A spell that kills people is a pretty swingy effect. Death ward is a way of preparing for it. Thus, preparation is very important for such a battle.

Guess we have different definitions of swingy. While I'm not arguing that it's not, random dice rolls on damage for things with huge number of dice (dragon's breath, high level casting of various spells, critical hits, etc...) tend to be more 'swingy' to me.

Criting with a spell? Swingy. Using a spell that has a fairly standard save or die effect that the party is probably going to have a way around anyway? Not so swingy in my opinion.

 

[FireLance]

I think there's quite a bit of agreement in this thread that more randomness means more swingy. However, is it possible to increase the amount of swinginess without increasing the amount of randomness?

One non-D&D example I can think of is trading in cards for army units in Risk. A player may start his turn in a bad situation, but the sudden influx of a large number of army units usually allows him to end his turn in a strong one.

Similarly, in 4e, daily powers increase the swinginess of combats because the PCs can use them to turn the tide of combat. On the monsters' side, there are powers that activate or which can only be used when they are bloodied.

This kind of tactical swinginess, for want of a better term, is something that I personally would like to see more of, as opposed to simply random swinginess.

 

[Garthanos]

Guess we have different definitions of swingy.

Mine is a pretty simple definition, hard to predict results, whether its a situational ability which may or may not be present or a die roll.

 

[Garthanos]

One non-D&D example I can think of is trading in cards for army units in Risk. A player may start his turn in a bad situation, but the sudden influx of a large number of army units usually allows him to end his turn in a strong one.

Example includes hidden randomness / which cards you recieved was random... (though whether they match your countries may be influenced by choices).

Bloodied state is rather a pace determined effect...

Say "this spell does X damage but a much bigger Y damage if you are bloodied and Z if your enemy is bloodied. " < -- that would be swingy.

 

[pawsplay]

I think there's quite a bit of agreement in this thread that more randomness means more swingy. However, is it possible to increase the amount of swinginess without increasing the amount of randomness?

Sure. My players are still lamenting the "they're just ogres" scenario. My players simply failed to detect magic (which would have revealed the ogre's magical equipment) and opened up with a fireball from a wand and a non-raging charge by the barbarian. Simple tactical oversights turned what should have been a cakewalk into a PC death and massive, massive amounts of injury.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with swingy'ness is that it only punishes the PC's in the long run. A given monster, by and large, will only feature in one combat. That one monster's lifespan is so short that the odds of the swing affecting this particular combat are pretty low.

However, the PC's feature in every combat. The odds of low chance events eventually reach 1 the longer you play.

Take the crit. A pretty obvious "swingy" element. 1 in 20 (well a bit less) you do double damage at the most basic. Sure, a single crit doesn't usually make a huge difference. Ignoring for a moment the higher crit weapons, because I don't want to assume humanoid opponents, there's still a chance of rolling two crits in a row. 1 in 400 is pretty low and the chances the PC's will do it to THIS monster are pretty remote.

But, the chances that a monster will do it to the PC's becomes pretty high after a while. Figure 10 combats (3e for this) per level, 4 rounds per combat, that's about 100 attacks per level. Every 4 levels or so, something should be nailing a PC for two crits in a row.

Suddenly, your full hit point fighter goes from perfectly healthy to dead.

Good tactics can't prevent this. Nothing really can prevent this. The DM gets on a streak, full attacks the fighter, pulls two crits and a third hit as well and the figher gets turned into a fine red mist.

That's the problem with swinginess. All the planning and tactics in the world can't help you. The dice gods declare you dead and you die. The troll hits you for 50 points of damage in a single round and your 4th level cleric is now rat jam.

This is one thing they got absolutely right in the 3e DMG - any effect which increases randomness only hurts the PC's, not the monsters.