Please define 'swingy'

[FireLance]

The DM doesn't have to tell the players that the creature's AC is 30 for all of them, all the time. He can just mentally calculate "well, this character took Weapon Expertise for +2 to hit, so I'll make its AC two higher against him." How are they going to know that it doesn't have a printed ability giving it +2 to defenses under certain circumstances?

A good DM can deal with the issue.

Careful, there's a whole other potential can of worms here.

If a player picks a feat thinking that it will improve his PC's attack bonus, but it never actually does, I think the DM would be better off banning the feat and letting the player get some benefit from his feat slot instead.

If the feat only benefits the PC during some fights but not in others, I think it is the responsibility of the DM to communicate this to the player, even if he only hints at it indirectly, so that the player gets a sense of the actual benefits of the feat and can retrain it out if he decides that another feat would be better.

Otherwise, the DM is effectively negating player choice or worse, deliberately misleading the player into making a bad choice. IMO, of course.

 

[Elric]

My last two posts were satire. I’m surprised they drew this much of a response. Unfortunately, plenty of people make similar arguments (“A good DM can…”) and are perfectly sincere.

There's a common misconception of what qualifies as a problem in a game's design. If you can alter the way you run a game significantly, so that a problem issue (e.g., a character is too effective) goes away, that doesn't mean that the issue isn't a problem.

For example, someone who lives near an airport may spend money sound-proofing his house. Let's say he does so and the airplane noise becomes imperceptible. It doesn't follow that the noise from airplanes isn't a problem- he had to spend money, which he wouldn't have had to spend if the airplane noise wasn't present, to address the issue.

 

[GSHamster]

Would you say that Chess is a swingy game?

My first instinct is to say no. There's no randomness, it's all strategy.

But on the other hand, a single move can drastically change the tenor of the game. A player on the attack can suddenly find herself on the defensive. The momentum can turn, and it can turn quite rapidly. A single wrong move, or a single brilliant move, is all it takes.

 

[Jhaelen]

Would you say that Chess is a swingy game?

My first instinct is to say no. There's no randomness, it's all strategy.

Yeah, however it does have something in common with 3e combat: Whoever goes first is more likely to win.

Actually, chess is assumed to belong to a category of games where the player that goes first cannot lose unless he's making a mistake. Examples for which proof already exists are checkers, reversi and tic-tac-toe.

 

[Runestar]

Would you say that Chess is a swingy game?

My first instinct is to say no. There's no randomness, it's all strategy.

Does chess involve attack rolls and saving throws?

 

[Mark Chance]

It does the way I play it.

 

[Blackbrrd]

As noted above, my examples weren't save-or-die spells, but spells with effects that had a (big) effect no matter what. As a player I actually prefer using these spells, since they aren't nearly as random as save-or-die spells are.

The thing that makes 3.x swingy is the damage attacks do compared to HP. Fireball for instance has the same average damage as a rogue with 10 con has in 3.x. (Not I would want a play a character in 3.x with 10 con - you would be lucky to get to level 2).

4e has a lot fewer of these obvious swingy fights than 3.x has. Mostly because the fights doesn't go like this:
Player1 damages Critter1 for 20 damage
Player1 damages Critter1 for 20 damage
Player1 damages Critter1 for 20 damage
Player1 damages Critter1 for 20 damage
Critter1 damages Player1 for 20 damage
Critter1 damages Player1 for 20 damage
Critter1 damages Player1 for 20 damage
Critter1 damages Player1 for 20 damage
Player1 dies
Player2 damages Critter1 for 20 damage
Critter1 dies

A typical 4e fight goes as this:
Critter1 damages Player1 for 20 damage
Player1 damages Critter1 for 20 damage
Player2 damages Critter1 for 20 damage
Critter1 damages Player1 for 20 damage
Player1 damages Critter1 for 20 damage
Player2 heals Player1 for 20 damage

What can make 4e into a big grind is if you have too much mitigation compared to damage typically by having too many leader/defenders compared to striker/controllers. Combat will take a lot of time and can get boring.

To counter this I am helping my party set up a party I know will be high in damage with ok mitigation. Some might feel this is meddling with your players options, but I am only hinting, and I know my players - I am not pushing hard.

 

[Mark Chance]

As noted above, my examples weren't save-or-die spells....

As was also noted above, your examples were either (1) a blatant DM screwjob or (2) the way the cookie crumbles. Neither of them are bugs in the system. The first is bad gameplay; the second is a feature.

 

[The Ghost]

As noted above, my examples weren't save-or-die spells, but spells with effects that had a (big) effect no matter what.

Is there anyone who disagrees with the statement that 3.x is a swingy system? I would hasten a guess that many if not most 3.x fans consider it a feature not a bug. It is certainly part of the reason I loved (and still love) low-level 3.x play.

 

[AllisterH]

In terms of "swinginess" (is that even a word?) I would say even 4e is more swingy than 1e/2e but not as much as 3e.

Mainly the critical feature. Being able to literally double your output can swing battles your way in 4e.