D&D 5E Would you be happy with fixed damage?

[Umbran]

Can't speak for anyone else but we started it because we had a guy who would pull out a calculator to calculate damage. Some people simply can't do addition in their head quickly.

And that's a fine reason for your table.

The point being that the question, "Would you be happy..." can depend on why you are doing it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Whenever I go to Vegas, I just calculate the odds of the games I am likely to play.

Then, instead of playing the games, I periodically hand the Casino an amount of money equal to my expected losses.

It's much more efficient, and allows me more time to see David Copperfield.

 

[dave2008]

We've been using fixed "average" damage for months, both DM and players. It works great and speeds up the combat a lot.

Players can roll if they want, but I don't bother anymore, not even for spells or sneak attacks.

One option is to roll damage on critical hits since that is where the most excitement usually comes from IMO.

EDIT: And the reason we do this is because over half the people in our groups are NOT quick at math, like at all!!!

We have been thinking of going with fixed average damage and with crits you roll for the extra damage and add it to the fixed damage. But we haven't made the jump yet.

 

[dave2008]

No.

Rolling and doing simple math does not slow down the game enough. Without some randomness, the game is much too easy to completely predict and control the outcome of a battle.

There is still some randomness in being able to actually hit (or save). Just being the Advocate

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think fixed damage would be kind of an unfun and uninteresting thing. It might speed things up, but it would be less exciting.

But I would be in favor of generally nixing the weapons table and instead simply making it so that a Fighter or a Rogue or a Cleric or a Wizard rolled the damage damage die in melee combat regardless of what the character's preferred choice of weapon is or if they chose to use improvised weapons or whatever.

Obviously there would need to be some variation to account for the difference between one-handed and shield or two handed or reach weapon.... But beyond that, the weapons table that favors certain weapons gets in the way more than helping. If you think it is cooler to have your character fight with a clawed glove or a spear rather than a longsword, then a weapons table that blatantly favors the longsword hampers enjoyment. I am sure a skilled fighter with any of those weapons can do roughly the same amount of "hit points" of damage across the 10-second round. Attacks need to be seen less as single swings as only getting in 1 swing every 10 seconds is pretty slow-paced combat anyway.

I might also be in favor of using the attack roll to determine how much damage is done instead of a second die roll-- but that system would just slow combat down. But it does seem odd that your attack can just barely hit someone and then do maximum damage or it can exceed their AC by 10 points and then only do 1 damage. But a system that fixes that would be over-complicated and likely involve charts and slow everything down.

If you wanted to go with fixed damage die by class, you could probably get away with making different weapons only have different effects with the appropriate fighting style. This does mean shields don't do anything without special training, but if you want people to just use whatever looks cool then that's not really a downside.

As for using the attack roll to determine damage: that's a lot more math, or will at least feel like it because people in general are much worse at doing subtraction in their head than addition. Attack roll minus AC will be a lot slower than the current system.

You might be able to do bonus damage on a high natural number. (ie nat 17-19 does +2 damage, nat 20 does +4.)

 

[Oofta]

Whenever I go to Vegas, I just calculate the odds of the games I am likely to play.

Then, instead of playing the games, I periodically hand the Casino an amount of money equal to my expected losses.

It's much more efficient, and allows me more time to see David Copperfield.

Considering my luck at Vegas the few times I've been there I've decided I might as well just drive by, take all the money from my wallet and throw it out the window. Faster, and about as enjoyable. At least someone other than the casinos would have a chance to get my money.

My biggest winnings ever was a dollar from a quarter slot machine. Which I then "reinvested" and lost.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Average damage is useful for the DM when they've got 30 kobolds or somesuch to deal with or a dragon that does 12d-something with its breath weapon. For PCs, I think whatever utility it has is offset by the decrease in fun.

 

[Retreater]

I use a VTT for my dice rolling needs, so this isn't necessary. At a physical table in a f2f game, I would allow it as an option if a) the player wanted to do it; AND/OR b) we were regularly rolling all kinds of dice. It's not that often in D&D.

 

[Nebulous]

no, not in DnD anyway. The random fluctuation of damage is a big part of the appeal.

Edit: In a game last week, the rolled damage from a succubus death kiss would have drained a PC to zero and auto killed him. They asked if we could use average damage, which left him with three hit points, and I said yeah, sure. I wasn't trying to kill anyone! Yet.

 

[Lanefan]

One thing I see numerous times in this thread is "Average damage saves me having to roll lots of dice on [some big blast effect]".

But isn't that the fun part? Counting out that big mittful of dice, gleefully shaking them, and rolling them all over the table?

I'd never want to lose that, either as DM or player!