D&D 5E Will your monsters roll for damage, or have set damage?

[machineelf]

I bought The Legacy of the Crystal Shard campaign in anticipation for the release of Next this summer. I'm pretty excited about getting a group to begin there at level 1. I was looking through the downloadable monster and encounter guide for the campaign, and it seems as though Next will allow the DM the option of having monsters either roll for damage, or simply inflict the same average amount of damage for every hit (presumably to speed up combat that much more). I was wondering what any of you felt were the pros and cons of each approach, and what you will be doing in your own games?

 

[GX.Sigma]

I've been running a D&D Next campaign for while, and I pretty much always use the average damage. Sometimes my players get wise to it ("I have 15 hp and the duergar deal 14 damage, so I can survive this hit!"), and in those cases I do roll damage. I have a similar policy for rolling monster hit points. I also sometimes roll damage for effects that feel big enough to have some tension (when Count Strahd casts fireball, I roll damage in front of the players).

 

[Mistwell]

I've been rolling damage every time. And I've also been rolling hit points for every individual monster every time. I can see why it's useful to have both averages for each creature, and if I am every caught in a pinch I will probably use them, but so far it hasn't been necessary and I prefer the random element.

 

[GMMichael]

I happen to be an expert on a non-Next system that does exactly this: allow damage rolls or a static amount.

If you roll for damage, you're allowing the dice to tell you something - to add a tiny amount of chaos into the game. A low roll could be a glancing blow, a shoulder-butt, an intimidating stomp. A high roll could be a sprained leg, a failed test of strength, or a gaping wound. With rolls, you get roleplaying suggestions (from the dice), and a feeling of luck.

If you take static damage, you're getting speed. You still have the flexibility of saying, "that was a mean hit!" or "just barely phased you," but the dice won't tell you which is which. You have to call it on your own. With static numbers, you'll want to impose some sort of an interest-rule, and in D&D, that will probably be the critical hit.

 

[Stormonu]

I'll be rolling. DMs should get the fun of rolling dice as well.

 

[Ichneumon]

I mostly roll, but reserve the right to use average damage at a time when it speeds up the combat. Of course, it's only courteous to tell my players when I've chosen this. For some reason, players averaging their damage seems to be far less popular than, say, averaging hit points.

 

[Raduin711]

I think I would do static damage for mobs, but for individuals, I would prefer to roll.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Roll. I prefer the unpredictability and suspense of never knowing exactly how much damage a monster will do.

 

[PinkRose]

My games go exactly like Sigma.
I've also found that those fights that are just a mass amount of kobolds are easier to run if average damage is used.
And I have also rolled to keep things interesting. Or if I'm just bored and want to roll.

 

[MerricB]

Depends how I feel. Generally I don't roll damage when I can't be bothered finding the right dice!