D&D 5E Pros and Cons of using the average damage on the Monster's stat block.

[georbit]

I looked to see if this had been talked about in the last 2 months and I couldn't find anything.

I find myself in this edition using the average damage notation in the monster's stat block when I assign damage. The only time I really do something different is when I crit, and then I roll the dice the second time and add that to the average damage. One of my players said that it wasn't quite fair because they all have to roll their damage, and they can get low or high depending. I said to him that I would think about it.

So, with that, I have been wondering if I should implement any of the following:

1) roll all the damage like they do for each monster's successful hit.

2) when critting use the average points for the dice instead of rolling.

3) Allow the players to take the average damage for their characters.

The con for 1 is that I will have to do much more rolling, which then takes more time, and I already have problems with combat taking too long. The pro for 2 would be that my crit damage is also averaged so I am at least consistent, but the con is that the players miss out on the possibility of a crappy crit. The pro for 3 is it would speed up combat even more, but the con is that it takes away the dice rolling aspect of damage, the luck factor, and I think that would be wrong.

So should I start rolling my monster's damage or not? What do others do?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I wish I could get my players to take average damage instead of rolling each time! In my opinion, the luck of whether or not you hit is already enough of a random factor, I don't also need the possibility that the wizard throws a dagger for more damage than the paladin swings a greataxe.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I wish I could get my players to take average damage instead of rolling each time! In my opinion, the luck of whether or not you hit is already enough of a random factor, I don't also need the possibility that the wizard throws a dagger for more damage than the paladin swings a greataxe.

It's the difference between a grazing hit with the axe and plunging the dagger deep.


Anyway, to the OP, I always prefer rolling. I find players metagame when you don't.

"Well, I know the monster always does 9 hp of damage, so I can stay for X rounds until I need to do something." or "Don't worry about healing me this round because I have 10 hp and he only does 9."

 

[georbit]

The meta-gaming factor comes out occasionally when they keep track of the monster's hit points. I don't really mind that, they are all new to this edition and new to D&D in general. They're trying to figure out the details, how does AC usually correspond to hit points and etc. But I will say that the average damage probably saves me at least a minute or two per encounter, which adds up over time.

 

[justinj3x3]

I wouldn't like using the average. It would take away from the randomness of life that the dice rolls are supposed to portray. As pointed out above it creates detail like a grazing hit etc.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The meta-gaming factor comes out occasionally when they keep track of the monster's hit points. I don't really mind that, they are all new to this edition and new to D&D in general. They're trying to figure out the details, how does AC usually correspond to hit points and etc. But I will say that the average damage probably saves me at least a minute or two per encounter, which adds up over time.

And for me, the extra few seconds to add up is insignificant. At least compared to the amount of time you deal with prep, refreshing an encounter in your mind to make sure you're accounting for everything, positioning of minis (if you use them), mapping, etc. The actual math part of the game is just a tiny tiny amount of time factoring in the entire gaming session.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's the difference between a grazing hit with the axe and plunging the dagger deep.

Yeah, you do lose out on some of the details when you just go with averages, but I find it's a lot easier on me as a player when there's less random-ness. I'm already on the edge of my seat worried about whether the monster is going to hit me or not; I don't need the roller-coaster of it being a hit, and it's a critical hit, but the damage roll was lower than average. That's too much tension. Just give it all to me at once.

 

[justinj3x3]

Yeah, you do lose out on some of the details when you just go with averages, but I find it's a lot easier on me as a player when there's less random-ness. I'm already on the edge of my seat worried about whether the monster is going to hit me or not; I don't need the roller-coaster of it being a hit, and it's a critical hit, but the damage roll was lower than average. That's too much tension. Just give it all to me at once.

But that's half the fun!!! ...... for the DM....

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'll use either depending on how I feel. I'll also tip a monster's HP up/down from the avg figure, too, when I think it's warranted.

 

[georbit]

I agree with that, tipping the monster's hp. I do it often for the last bad guy if there's a mob of them and he can't get away. Why waste the time having your characters pound on him when the end result is the same.

For me that time is important, because all the prep in the world, and I still have only 4 hours to get the players together and have an adventure. I want to make the most of those 4 hours, so time during gaming is precious.