D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[Warbringer]

You seem to have missed that we aren't talking about rational in game reasons for it like knowledge rolls.

I was responding to ...

"A player doesn't get to suddenly decide that their grandpappy is a survivor of the underdark and at some point explained all that goes on down there to the PC..."

I presented examples (roll and inspiration) as in game mechanical reasons that refute the above. I also have no problem that a player could make that statement above (which in a game like 13th Age would be deciding a characters background - read skills). Players get to do that type of thing all the time in my world, including creating friendly NPCs, creating terrain on the battlefield, a lingering wound on a monster ... Anything the adds flavor to the story... (And yes it's an in story reason for meta game at times)

However, I have a problem with players that continually revert to meta game without creating in game coherency because I feel they're missing out on the fun of failing in a completely safe environment. There is nothing to win in D&D... Apart from the experience

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Hiving off from the "Access to Races in a Campaign" thread derailment:
There's such a thing as too much information, or information a character in character would not necessarily have, and this is one. In the fog of war there's no way of knowing whether the next swing that gets by your defenses is going to produce a small nick (4 points damage) or stove your head in (50 points damage); just like there's no way of knowing what your own successful attacks will actually accomplish.

It's along the same lines of a character in-character knowing its turn in the initiative order - an equally outlandish concept solved by rerolling initiatives each round.

Lan-"wondering both what monster does 13-68 points on a hit and what set of dice one rolls to get that range"-efan

I agree. I like randomness. That said, I do a "double random" for my game. Meaning I use the average most of the time, but sometimes I roll because I feel like rolling dice. Sometimes I just double critical damage, sometimes it's average plus roll, sometimes it roll then double...whatever I feel like that works out to be the same range, really. My players don't care and it does add to the "who the F knows if this claw is gonna fell Sedgaar the Mighty or not? Not me...I'm just the DM".

PS: It's 12d4+1d20. Oh, and the monster is that one in the book where there's a picture of it doing something to some other monster, and there's that weird doohicky they are fighting on, with all the thingamabobs kinda falling or floating off it. Yeah...that one.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Warbringer]

Interesting that you'd hint at the damage before the player decides the character's defensive action...I'd also put that well into the "too much information" category.

Here's my take: it damage "rolled" doesn't change, only the timing of when it's communicated. So what's important is which is more dramatic - telling the damage after the attack when it's just a result, or using it to give the player the option to try and avoid it and " dodge a bullet"

I agree that the intent is "the Skelton is going to clean your clock", with natural language describing by "how much", now the only real difference is now between experienced players (who likely know the monster stats) and casual players who don't understandung the relative difference, so why not just give the number and level that particular playing field.

On criticals, yep ... Roll a 1 on your defensive check and you've left yourself open to a killing blow, basically double the communicated damage...

"The skeleton shifts slightly, leaving your parry blocking only air, and to your horror leaving the undead monstrosity a clear strike against your unprotected midriff."

 

[Lanefan]

I agree. I like randomness. That said, I do a "double random" for my game. Meaning I use the average most of the time, but sometimes I roll because I feel like rolling dice. Sometimes I just double critical damage, sometimes it's average plus roll, sometimes it roll then double...whatever I feel like that works out to be the same range, really.

The way I see it, I've got all these dice in my bag anyway; might as well put 'em to use.

PS: It's 12d4+1d20. Oh, and the monster is that one in the book where there's a picture of it doing something to some other monster, and there's that weird doohicky they are fighting on, with all the thingamabobs kinda falling or floating off it. Yeah...that one.

Right, got it! Page 92 in the 5e MM...or was that page 95 in the 2e MM...er, maybe page 29 in the Fiend Folio?...dammit, it's around here somewhere and it's gonna kill you all anyway, so why not just lie down dead right now and get it over with?

Lan-"the advanced version has +3 thingamabobs floating off it"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Here's my take: it damage "rolled" doesn't change, only the timing of when it's communicated. So what's important is which is more dramatic - telling the damage after the attack when it's just a result, or using it to give the player the option to try and avoid it and " dodge a bullet"

Question: do you give the same option to the opponents? If no, you're actually helping the party considerably by doing this.

I agree that the intent is "the Skelton is going to clean your clock"

This typo makes me laugh as 'Skelton' is a family name among our crew here...

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

The randomness of damage is part of the fun. Our evenings are filled with great shock when a strong monster rolls very high for its damage, or great laughter when the epic boss throws nothing but 1's and 2's.

Like last session, when the party got hit by an Icestorm from a ghostly sorcerer, and the damage was just pathetic. The party was really scared of this guy, up to the point when he actually started casting. There was a lot of laughter as I was face palming behind my DM screen. But of course I was just as entertained by it as they were.

I normally roll behind the DM screen, so there is more focus on my storytelling, rather than the actual dice. But during those exciting moments, I always roll the damage out in the open, so they can all see that there is no cheating.

 

[Maxperson]

I was responding to ...

"A player doesn't get to suddenly decide that their grandpappy is a survivor of the underdark and at some point explained all that goes on down there to the PC..."

I presented examples (roll and inspiration) as in game mechanical reasons that refute the above. I also have no problem that a player could make that statement above (which in a game like 13th Age would be deciding a characters background - read skills). Players get to do that type of thing all the time in my world, including creating friendly NPCs, creating terrain on the battlefield, a lingering wound on a monster ... Anything the adds flavor to the story... (And yes it's an in story reason for meta game at times)

I know what you did. This conversation already excluded those things as happening, not because they couldn't happen, but because Aaron was arguing against there being a reasonable in game requirement for actions. Therefore, when I made that statement in the context of this discussion those things were not options. You didn't actually refute anything.

As an example. Let's say we're talking about a specific race that car driver A always wins and car driver B always places second at. Now, we're having a discussion and it comes out that for whatever reason, driver A isn't racing this time. If I then say, "Nobody can beat driver B.", it's clearly in the context of this discussion about this race and you don't refute me by saying, "But driver A beats driver B."

However, I have a problem with players that continually revert to meta game without creating in game coherency because I feel they're missing out on the fun of failing in a completely safe environment. There is nothing to win in D&D... Apart from the experience

I agree. That's exactly the type of player we are discussing, though, which is why you didn't actually refute me

 

[aramis erak]

I roll damage because of old habits.

I should note that there are four possible picks on this (Example uses scimitar and +2 stat mod):

Rolled for base and crits. (1d6+2 hit, 2d6+2 crit)
Flat base, add die for crits (6 base; 1d6+6 crit)
rolled base, add flat for crits (1d6+2 base; 1d6+6 crit)
flat base and crits (6 base, 10 crit)

I'd be fine with any of them as a player. My preference as a player is rolled both, but it's not a strong preference.

 

[Warbringer]

Question: do you give the same option to the opponents? If no, you're actually helping the party considerably by doing this.

This typo makes me laugh as 'Skelton' is a family name among our crew here...

Lanefan

Sorry for late reply, long day consulting.

In reverse order .. Lol appropriate typo!!

So in active story only players roll ( I think this was a rule from unearted arcana way back when)...players get 20 - critical ...get 1 ... Monster critical... In theory balances out though there is 5% swing in player favor in defense rolls... Make sense?

 

[steenan]

In D&D I generally roll for damage; that's what is in the rules. I sometimes make an exception for big groups of weak monsters - as it would average out anyway.

On the other hand, I generally prefer games where there is no separate damage roll. Like in Fate, where stress is equal to the difference between attack and defense, or in Strike where each attack power has a fixed damage and effect (and attack roll gives results of "failure", "choose damage or effect", "damage and effect" and "double damage and effect").