The Swing of Things

[ExploderWizard]

I was intending to reply to another thread with this but it was closed ( no biggie) but the issue crosses edition boundaries and can apply to any game.

The issue at hand: "Swinginess" of Combat and combat length.

I understand that the 4E combat system was designed to last a longer number of rounds and that the actual time it takes to play out the combat will vary from group to group. Saying that any edition's combat system "takes forever" isn't fair because there are so many variables that impact the real time it takes to play out any given combat.

What I have come to realize is that I (and the group I usually play with) LIKE a swingy combat whatever the system may be. A lot of excitement during an encounter comes from the possibility that a PC or monster could get taken out rather quickly. A more mathematically balanced system fixes the most swingy parts of combat and to our group it seen as a loss not a gain. Its purely a playstyle choice and not everyone enjoys the same feel for thier combats but I am happly to sacrifice some balance for a greater sense of risk during combats. Going into battle knowing my character (or an opponent) could get potentially one-shotted is exciting. I guess thats why I like GURPS so much.

So. How much swing vs. balance do you like in your combat system?

 

[blargney the second]

I don't like it when everything (especially my PC) can be one-shotted. That's why the we skipped levels 1-3 in most of our D&D games in the past. I don't mind being two-shotted, but one-hit KOs make me an unhappy gamer.

I also like most monsters to last more than a single hit - I like seeing the cool stuff they can do. 4e minions are fine in small doses to round out encounters, but too many is a bit boring.
-blarg

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't like it when everything (especially my PC) can be one-shotted. That's why the we skipped levels 1-3 in most of our D&D games in the past. I don't mind being two-shotted, but one-hit KOs make me an unhappy gamer.

I also like most monsters to last more than a single hit - I like seeing the cool stuff they can do. 4e minions are fine in small doses to round out encounters, but too many is a bit boring.
-blarg

I was using "one shot" in a liberal sense, meaning neutralized in some way (and possibly restored during the fight perhaps), not just dead in one hit.

 

[Jhaelen]

So. How much swing vs. balance do you like in your combat system?

Well, in the sweet spot of 3E (~ Level 3-7) swingyness is great.

It's problematic in the lower levels because everything can die from a single hit.

And it gets outright silly in the higher levels. Combats rarely even take three rounds! The consequence: The only thing that is important in a combat is to maximize your damage output as much as possible. It makes zero sense to spend a round to do something non-offensive (well, except for clerics which should never do anything besides healing).

So, a certain degree of swingyness is fine, but when it becomes too much, things become boring.

From what I've read about 4E, combats can be swingy and might even have a proper amount of swingyness unless it involves solo-monsters or high-level play. There's not been sufficient data yet, however, to decide if these two aspects of the game are as problematic as they've been portrayed by some posters.

 

[BeauNiddle]

For me I personally dislike swingy combat.

Strategy - this is the plan you have outside combat
Tactics - this is the plan you use inside combat to adapt to changing circumstances.


All games support Strategy but I find swingy combat (or a least swingy due to randomness) rules out tactics. If any enemy can get 'lucky' and do massive damage then it doesn't matter who you attack since they all have to die. If an enemy gets 'lucky' and does massive damage then there is no reason to jump on them since it's just 'luck' and not skill so you can't say for certain they are a serious threat.

4E seems to be focusing on tactical battles - creatures changing tatics / abilities at bloodied, mooks which are a threat but a quantifiable low threat, Warlords - which as a 100% tactician according to Robin's Laws I like.


[Note this mostly applies against grim'n'gritty combat with exploding dice (Savage Worlds, WFRP) which is very random. 3E was less random but still swingy. I'm undecided what level of swingyness I'm after at the moment]

 

[Pickles JG]

All games support Strategy but I find swingy combat (or a least swingy due to randomness) rules out tactics. If any enemy can get 'lucky' and do massive damage then it doesn't matter who you attack since they all have to die. If an enemy gets 'lucky' and does massive damage then there is no reason to jump on them since it's just 'luck' and not skill so you can't say for certain they are a serious threat.

4E seems to be focusing on tactical battles - creatures changing tatics / abilities at bloodied, mooks which are a threat but a quantifiable low threat, Warlords - which as a 100% tactician according to Robin's Laws I like.

You can still assess the probabilities & eliminate the most dangerous foes first - it's just that you do not have a free ride once they are down - the weaker ones may still get lucky & cause a bit of drama. It's like Warmachine (say) not chess.

PS Do you know the Macclesfield Wargame Club People? I know a few of them.

 

[Ginnel]

Swingy combat is a no-no for me, I've experienced it in running and playing games, my characters done nothing wrong except run into a fight, he's out of the fight now? great

A way to get round this is to be extra careful all the time, slow the pace right down so your group can be on the lookout, but not all games run this way unless you're a trained stealth force, group of ninja/commandoes, or to almost never engage in combat, this can work but in a relatively combat orientated game at least 1 combat every session or 2 I don't think it flies, players can be left with a fear of another dull combat, instead of one where they can miss a few times but still have the chance to shine.

taking 4th edition as an example it has the oppurtunity to take a character out of combat by him being swamped in one round (maybe after some previous damage maybe not) but you can also get into the fight again with spending a healing surge (either by heal or a leader class ability)

If the swingness often results in death its even worse, long term character goals and backgrounds become pointless, as does developing a character itself. I feel the swinginess in one or two blows bringing a creature down to half hits or less is swingy enough for my tastes, but PC's being one shotted I can't see how thats thrilling, its like saying right whether this D20 turns up 12+ will determine whether I sit around bored for the next half hour or so.

 

[MerricB]

I was using "one shot" in a liberal sense, meaning neutralized in some way (and possibly restored during the fight perhaps), not just dead in one hit.

You probably just need to play more 4e.

Send two bodaks skulks up against a group, and have both act against the same character.

Bodak #1: Slam PC and weaken him.
Bodak #2: Death gaze PC and reduce him to 0 hp.

It's also okay to send higher level monsters up against PCs. Take a Bugbear Warrior, which when it hits with its Skullthumper attack does up to 18 damage, knocks the target prone and dazes them. Eep. Send that up against a 1st level PC, just for fun. Then Bugbear #2 attacks... with combat advantage.

There are situations in 4e that can get bad, very quickly for the PCs. Ditto for the monsters, if the PCs are smart. Sleep isn't the instant kill of earlier editions, but there's a good chance that half the monsters it affects will be sleeping by the time the Wizard gets his next action!

Cheers!

 

[Mercule]

I like risky combat (and non-combat, for that matter). I dislike swingy, though. Basically, I like being required to think and being reliably rewarded for good tactics and ideas. I also like having players who do not use any sort of tactics be at a disadvantage. Whether the best tactics are "realistic" or cinematic is irrelevant (so long as the answer is a known quantity).

 

[ExploderWizard]

I feel the swinginess in one or two blows bringing a creature down to half hits or less is swingy enough for my tastes, but PC's being one shotted I can't see how thats thrilling, its like saying right whether this D20 turns up 12+ will determine whether I sit around bored for the next half hour or so.

I guess our group can enjoy grittier combat because we enjoy hanging out and socializing outside of the game. If I were to join a new group and the only contact I had was the game I could easily see becoming bored if taken out early in the action.

I'm with you here. Tactical thinking is part of the fun. Our GURPS combats use a lot of tactical moves. The part I like is that the HP scale remains more or less constant. No matter how good a fighter you are, if someone gets in a great shot to a vital location you can go down.