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

[The Crimson Binome]

I like a good degree of randomness, which is why I'm strongly in favor of fixed damage.

Rolling for damage, in addition to the attack roll, creates too much randomness. Often, a low damage roll will fail to finish off an enemy, so the entire attack was effectively wasted (since someone else will have to spend an attack to finish them off); except we rolled twice, and applied subtraction to their HP total, in order to find out that nothing actually changed. Or the player will roll on the high end, but the enemy would have died from average damage, so the theoretical benefit of their roll was lost.

Fixed damage keeps combat focused on the interesting randomness (the attack roll), while bypassing a variety of unsatisfying outcomes. It's extremely efficient in terms of maximizing fun per time investment.

 

[LordEntrails]

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

I get it, but it's not enough randomness for my table.

I've been playing D&D with my brother for over 40 years. He also happens to be a mathematics teacher. It doesn't matter if he tries to min/max/optimize or not. He innately knows the how long various combats will take, what the chances of things going as planned are, how many rounds the fighter can, on average and with enough reliability, last before he needs healing. Or how many of the monsters the fireball will take out, or a thousand other things.

It's not that he thinks about it, it's not that he needs to read up on monster stat blocks. But with years and years and tens of thousands of combats, this stuff just becomes second nature. And when you have a mind like his, it's just something known. So, the more randomness the better.

I also use random initiative, we like it because of the unknown nature of it. Maybe the cleric can't wait to heal because next round the cleric might go after the BBEG. Maybe the the wizard can't wait to cast web. Maybe, maybe, maybe.... That variability adds to the chaos and uncertainty of combat. Something we enjoy and like. If their is no chance of losing a combat, or even having a character killed, then we feel there is little value in bothering to roll. If the story is going to be told along one path with out the randomness of dice, then why bother using a die system?

(Note, there are a lot of other things I do to keep the whole party guessing, I rarely tell them the type of creature they are fighting unless their character knows it. I also use amped up mooks and lots of other things. Like the group of kobold commandos, dragonshields and sorcerors the party recently encountered. "Oh look, a bunch of kobolds. You go take care of them while I polish my boots. What do you mean the kobold with the spear and shield didn't die when I slapped him? Oh sh!t, did that kobold just cast fireball at us?")

 

[DeviousQuail]

I like Cypher's approach with flat weapon damage that is modified by Effort and the d20 attack roll. However, Cypher's design isn't as granular as I'd like. If I were to bring it over to DnD I'd make each weapon do flat damage equal to it's average + extra damage from your attack roll equal to +1 for every 2 points above 10, just like calculating modifiers. (The flat damage may need to be increased or decreased to stay in line with 5e expected damage, haven't run the numbers)

I like this approach because greatswords are still more damaging than daggers, bigger attack rolls are rewarded over lesser attack rolls, damage is still randomized, you only have to roll 1 die, and I suspect it'd be faster to determine damage this way. How this would work for damage based on saves I have no idea.

 

[jmartkdr2]

and I suspect it'd be faster to determine damage this way.

Actually, I think thos would be a lot harder to determine damage since you have to add up your attack roll, subtract the AC (as opposed to just compare), then divide the result by two, then add a flat modifier.

so you replace the damage roll (roll a die and add a number) with subtract > divide > add. Trying to get people to do that in their heads is gonna be rough.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Actually, I think thos would be a lot harder to determine damage since you have to add up your attack roll, subtract the AC (as opposed to just compare), then divide the result by two, then add a flat modifier.

so you replace the damage roll (roll a die and add a number) with subtract > divide > add. Trying to get people to do that in their heads is gonna be rough.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The really great thing about a binary success/fail system is that you don't have to calculate the margin of success; once you know that you succeed or fail, that's the end of the procedure. Even if you still roll damage, as a completely different die roll, the combination of binary comparison and counting damage dice is probably faster than counting the exact margin of success or failure; doubly so if you keep forgetting about Bless.

 

[Blue]

While running, for numerous low-powered foes I often use average damage. But players, let them roll.

 

[DeviousQuail]

Actually, I think thos would be a lot harder to determine damage since you have to add up your attack roll, subtract the AC (as opposed to just compare), then divide the result by two, then add a flat modifier.

so you replace the damage roll (roll a die and add a number) with subtract > divide > add. Trying to get people to do that in their heads is gonna be rough.

I wasn't clear, the extra damage isn't determined by Attack-AC. It's just whatever your attack roll is but you could still miss and do zero damage.

 

[ccs]

No, I wouldn't be happy. I'd be bored. Or one step closer to bored.
There's an excitement to wondering how good of a hit you've scored. And in hoping the enemy rolls low.

And I'd have a lot of useless odd shaped dice.

 

[humble minion]

As a player, i like rolling dice for damage.
As a GM, I'd be hesitant to average monster damage because in some combats it might lead players into a numbercrunching playstyle where everyone calculates exactly how many more hits they can survive. A bit of uncertainty is good for them.

 

[ccs]

What problem would it be solving?

Someone running the risk of feeling bad when they roll low?
Avoiding any kind of power discrepancy between players?
Finer control in planning out encounters?

I mean, those are the reasons given in avoiding rolling stats, rolling hp , rolling treasure, etc