D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[Pauper]

I use fixed damage for monsters, unless they crit, in which case I roll the extra crit damage. It helps speed up play, but still leaves some uncertainty on crits, which I like.

--
Pauper

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Rolled damage. Keeps the uncertaity more and its a tense moment when I roll monster damage.

Rolled HP as well. Some ogres are tougher than others, though if I want there to be a leader monster or the like I just give it max HP or stuff like that.

 

[billd91]

Rolled damage for everyone, rolled hit points for PCs and significant NPCs and boss monsters. For monsters that are encountered in groups, then I usually use the average hit points.

Yes, we roll for hit points as characters advance. We do effectively roll each die twice, taking the larger of the two scores. The expected value rises a bit to closer to 60-66% of hit points rather than about the middle of the road.

 

[discosoc]

I roll stuff, because I think it's an important part of rpg concepts. However, I do try and telegraph the results a little to give players an idea of how good a hit that was. So if I open up with a crit or something, I'll actually emphasize that the attack was a lot more damaging than expected. Same with small damage from bad rolls.

Having said that, 5e has me using default HP values more and more, because of the sheer number of hit dice most monsters have. It's getting ridiculous with the 13d8+59 crap for random monsters, much less rolling boss HP. I'm really starting to not like the way bounded accuracy is playing out, because of how it's affecting things like this.

 

[Zinnger]

I didn't read all the responses but I wanted to share this. I think that each group gets enjoyment from a variety of things. Some like the more theater of mind and story telling while others like the grit and grind of the grid with special tactics to gain advantages. What your group desires will determine what works best at your table. I agree that rolling everything random can make for long fights and sap the fun away. I also feel the uncertainty and randomness can add a level of fun and challenge. So as for me and my group, I use an app on my iPad that controls everything so it is very easy and very fast. Everything is random and fresh. HP are rolled separately for each mob, damage rolled for each hit, initiative rolled each round, everything. Better heal now because if you won initiative this round and lose it next round, the monster may go TWICE before you go again! For us it adds a level of urgency, challenge, and fun!!! We love it!

I suppose if you really want fast above random, why even roll to hit? If you need to roll a natural 15, for example, why roll at all. Just say that you hit once for every 4 attack attempts and deal the average damage. There used to be written books that would tell you to turn to a certain page based on your action. When you get to that page you would read what happened as a result of your action and make your next choice and advance to the next indicated page. NO DICE NEEDED! I read a few of those books and found them to be far less fun than playing a real game with real random outcomes. But that's just me and my group. We love the random - nobody knows - better hope this works - type of combat. That's more than half the fun for us. But... each to his own...

 

[psychophipps]

I roll dem bones!

 

[SnakeEyes097]

For HP, since right now we are only level 3, I will usually just assign regular monsters +/- about 4 from the average, depending on the monster. It's to differentiate monsters, and the players don't know exactly when they will kill them. Four normal orcs, for example, might have 13/18/16/12 hp, while their leader might be more near the upper range of their rolled hit die like 20. It does make a difference right now at our level, since the orcs in this example have a 6 point spread between highest and lowest hp. Otherwise the barbarian would likely always attack the one he knows he can blow up in one shot, and it would go on from there and the battles would always shake out the same way. The players don't necessarily know who to attack first to take out easily, and in my group has lead to better rp and cooperation between players. What I like to do is place the monsters on the map, and while I'm getting the hp and initiatives my players will start to strategize a bit so it's not like it's wasted time.

 

[Maxperson]

As I've said in numerous threads: There is no such thing as "metagaming" (at least not until you invent it, claim to want to avoid it, and by doing so make it mandatory for everyone to do it).

Saying it doesn't make it true, though. Metagaming exists all by its lonesome and all we're doing is identifying it. Doing so doesn't make it mandatory to do, either. That's just bupkis.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Saying it doesn't make it true, though. Metagaming exists all by its lonesome and all we're doing is identifying it. Doing so doesn't make it mandatory to do, either. That's just bupkis.

Metagaming: using the knowledge of the player to determine what decisions the character makes.

Avoiding metagaming, step by step process:
1) Determine what the player knows... and in doing so, metagame.
2) Force the player that knows what is a good idea to jump through hoops like die rolls for knowledge checks or do something they know isn't a good idea - even though a player that had no clue and was guessing is allowed to play their character as making a guess, thus proving it was the player's knowledge - not the character's - that was used to decide the course of action.

You can call it "bupkis" but I have proven it as being true, including that if I recall correctly you and I actually had a conversation on another forum about how I'm not allowed to have my character guess about something in one of your games because I know as a player that the character's guess is correct.

 

[Maxperson]

Metagaming: using the knowledge of the player to determine what decisions the character makes.

Avoiding metagaming, step by step process:
1) Determine what the player knows... and in doing so, metagame.
2) Force the player that knows what is a good idea to jump through hoops like die rolls for knowledge checks or do something they know isn't a good idea - even though a player that had no clue and was guessing is allowed to play their character as making a guess, thus proving it was the player's knowledge - not the character's - that was used to decide the course of action.

You can call it "bupkis" but I have proven it as being true, including that if I recall correctly you and I actually had a conversation on another forum about how I'm not allowed to have my character guess about something in one of your games because I know as a player that the character's guess is correct.

There's your problem. You've incorrectly defined metagaming. Metagaming is your character using knowledge that it doesn't have, but the player does. It is not just using the knowledge of the player to determine what decisions the character makes.

Example 1: I decide based on X, Y and Z things that happened in game and deal with dragons that my character would know what a dragon is, or I decided that since he has never even heard of a dragon, that he doesn't know what one is.

That's not metagaming.

Example 2: My character has no idea what a troll is, but I instantly go for fire instead of the sword that I've used in every other fight, because I the player know that trolls have a fire weakness.

That's metagaming.