D&D 5E do you still roll for damage?

[76512390ag12]

I only roll damage for boss monsters. It's one of the ways the PCs know they are facing a boss monster..

I kinda like that



Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[76512390ag12]

Same, the randomness adds to the danger (or not) of each individual combat.

IMHO the roll to hit or miss does that for me



Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[LarryD]

I roll damage same time I roll attack (unless number of damage dice exceeds what I have on hand). If I miss, no big deal. If I hit, I only need to add the dice and mods. Easy peasy.

 

[devincutler]

As a DM, I just use the average. When I go through and make my notes before a session, I transcribe all of the monster stats that might come up, and I only record the average/crit damage instead of writing down the whole thing.

Using the average damage doesn't make monsters any more or less dangerous, on average, but it does make them more consistent and faster to run. When you're already dealing with uncertainty on whether or not they'll hit, adding in the conditional uncertainty of how well they hit is not really worth the complexity. It also makes critical hits more important, since you're never going to get higher damage from a non-critical hit, and you never risk rolling a crit that somehow deals below-average damage anyway.

The problem is that it allows the PCs to know with certainty that they can take X more hits from a creature before reaching 0 hit points. I don't like that certainty.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The problem is that it allows the PCs to know with certainty that they can take X more hits from a creature before reaching 0 hit points. I don't like that certainty.

There is no certainty; there are only probabilities. After all, you don't know that they're going to hit; and even if they do hit, you don't know if it might be a crit.

Look at your typical Air Elemental, for example. It has two attacks at +8 that each deal 2d8+5 damage. If you're rolling for damage, then it can deal anywhere between 0 damage and 74 damage on its turn, depending on how many attacks hit and whether they are critical hits and how the damage rolls out. If your AC is 19, then there's a relatively high probability that it will deal about fourteen damage on its turn, with a non-negligible possibility of dealing zero or ~28, and a much smaller chance that it would deal less than ten damage or greater than fifty damage.

If you're just taking the averages, then the possible outcomes for damage dealt in a round are: 0, 14, 23, 28, 37, 46. The certainty that you gain is that it will deal one of those numbers to you in a round.

When you weight all of the possible outcomes by the probability of them occurring, the information comes out the same either way. Rolling damage does present the possibility of outcomes which are impossible by averages, but they aren't statistically significant in most cases. If someone had 47 hit points remaining, I don't think that the certainty of being able to survive a 1-in-400 chance double-crit would alter their actions much. And while it might affect their decision if they had 13 or 15 hit points left, since the chance of rolling outside that range on 2d8+5 is statistically significant, it wouldn't change the probabilities by enough to outweigh the ease-of-play benefit of not rolling extra dice.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I don't roll for damage at levels 1 and 2. Rolling makes the combat really swingy when one really good role can take a character out of the fight.

I've decided to also not roll for minions, in the interests of speed of play.

 

[devincutler]

There is no certainty; there are only probabilities. After all, you don't know that they're going to hit; and even if they do hit, you don't know if it might be a crit.

Look at your typical Air Elemental, for example. It has two attacks at +8 that each deal 2d8+5 damage. If you're rolling for damage, then it can deal anywhere between 0 damage and 74 damage on its turn, depending on how many attacks hit and whether they are critical hits and how the damage rolls out. If your AC is 19, then there's a relatively high probability that it will deal about fourteen damage on its turn, with a non-negligible possibility of dealing zero or ~28, and a much smaller chance that it would deal less than ten damage or greater than fifty damage.

If you're just taking the averages, then the possible outcomes for damage dealt in a round are: 0, 14, 23, 28, 37, 46. The certainty that you gain is that it will deal one of those numbers to you in a round.

When you weight all of the possible outcomes by the probability of them occurring, the information comes out the same either way. Rolling damage does present the possibility of outcomes which are impossible by averages, but they aren't statistically significant in most cases. If someone had 47 hit points remaining, I don't think that the certainty of being able to survive a 1-in-400 chance double-crit would alter their actions much. And while it might affect their decision if they had 13 or 15 hit points left, since the chance of rolling outside that range on 2d8+5 is statistically significant, it wouldn't change the probabilities by enough to outweigh the ease-of-play benefit of not rolling extra dice.

Averages are equivalent over the course of many damage rolls. They are not even close to so over, say, 3-6 damage rolls typical in many fights. I understand perfectly that there are other items of uncertainty that enter into the equation. Nevertheless, the fact that non critical damage has no deviation from the average is, de facto, more certain than not, and that makes damage too reliable. For example, let's say I am fighting a creature that makes two attacks that do 2d8+5 damage each. If I have 30 hp left, I know, for a fact, barring a critical, I can stand a full round of attack and not go down. That is an absolute certainty. If I am rolling, on the other hand, it is almost 50-50 I will go down. That is a huge...I repeat HUGE difference.

You present the possible rolls as if their outcomes are equivalent, which is not true. Doing two crits on two attacks is a 1 in 400 chance which can effectively be ignored.

Doing 1 critical is still only a 1 in 20 chance, which can also basically be ignored.

Here's a statistical example:

Assume I have 30 hp and the foe has two attacks that do 2d8+5 damage. Assume whatever my AC and its attack roll might be, it hits 50% of the time.

What is my chance of falling if I am hit twice without criticals?

With average damage, that chance is 0%.

With rolled damage, what is my chance of standing at the end of my foe's attack?

Answer = The chance of rolling 20+ on 4d8 plus is 37%

Compare 0% with 37%. Huge difference in certainty.

What's the chance of hitting twice? 25%. That is still 9% versus 0%. Huge difference in certainty.

I won't go into the math needed to figure out the crits, but the chance of a crit on one of two dice is no more than 9 3/4%, so at best you close the gap by about 1%.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What's the chance of hitting twice? 25%. That is still 9% versus 0%. Huge difference in certainty.

I won't go into the math needed to figure out the crits, but the chance of a crit on one of two dice is no more than 9 3/4%, so at best you close the gap by about 1%.

So the 9% chance that you'll get hit twice, with the sum of 4d8 coming up 20 or higher, is huge? But the 9% chance of rolling a critical hit isn't significant?

When you take average damage, the players have more certainty regarding probable outcomes than if damage is rolled. The relative amount of certainty may be difficult or onerous to quantify, but in my experience, that very-slightly-reduced level of uncertainty is still plenty enough to make for an interesting game. What you do in the face of uncertainty is still just-as-interesting of a choice, even with slightly fewer variables involves.

 

[devincutler]

So the 9% chance that you'll get hit twice, with the sum of 4d8 coming up 20 or higher, is huge? But the 9% chance of rolling a critical hit isn't significant?

When you take average damage, the players have more certainty regarding probable outcomes than if damage is rolled. The relative amount of certainty may be difficult or onerous to quantify, but in my experience, that very-slightly-reduced level of uncertainty is still plenty enough to make for an interesting game. What you do in the face of uncertainty is still just-as-interesting of a choice, even with slightly fewer variables involves.

The 9% critical chance affects the overall odds by only 1% or so.

For example, if I have a 20% chance to hit you and, if I hit, the chance of a critical is only 9%, then the net affect of the critical chance is 20% x 9% = 1.8%.

 

[Staccat0]

I usually roll unless it's npc vs npc, but I did a game of Speed D&D at Gen Con and I used averages for that as just because I am bad at math and didn't wanna waste time.