|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 5:31AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2009
|
I have played a few sessions now and only use the numbers for damage given in the bestiary. I was wondering what you guys are doing. Any reason not to roll for damage?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 8:19AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2007
|
I have to admit: I was sceptical. But not rolling for damage (and just using static numbers) makes combat so much faster I don't think I can ever go back.
The thing is: you really aren't losing much. It seems like you would be, but a good example I read somewhere else was: we used to roll for initiative at the beginning of each round. Thinking back on that now, it seems silly. It takes longer and is more complicated, and it doesn't really add much to the game. Now, rolling once is second nature, and we accept it. Monster damage is really the same. The total varriance isn't usually very big anyway, and the load off the GM's shoulders ends up being HUGE. It's a bottleneck that doesn't need to exist, and gets the focus back on the most important part of combat: PCs making choices - instead of the least important part: people doing math in their heads.
Here's another secret: players can do it, too. We recently ran a game where everyone - monsters and PCs - used static numbers for damage. People were raising eyebrows like mad when I suggested it, but decided to give it a go. At the end I asked what they thought, and they all agreed: it didn't really change anything, and the massive speed-up of combat was more than worth it. Try it, and see what you think! (You can always go back!)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 8:32AM
#3
|
|
|
Here's another secret: players can do it, too. We recently ran a game where everyone - monsters and PCs - used static numbers for damage.
That is essentially how the original D&D Minis combat system worked, from what I recall. The variability in the current system would be from damage modifiers. Nothing really wrong with it, although there is a bit less drama for the players when it comes to knowing whether the next attack is going to take them out or not. If you're down to 3 hit points and the orc that hit you last round for 5 damage just socked you again, you might as well knock over your miniature.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 8:54AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2012
|
I would always use the dice, but perhaps initiative could be streamlined in this way. I just think it would take a lot of risk and drama out of combat. If you knew that in the above example you would definitely die next round with a hit, you would just retreat immediately to avoid the risk.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 9:36AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2011
|
I agree with BobbieM. I know that too frequently my players would run away from combat and hunker down in a corner where it would be difficult to approach them and they wouldn't come back out until they had been all healed up. I think it's a problem that would only be accentuated by always knowing how much damage is done.
And it would also remove those "WOAH!" big hits from the game which are some of the most exciting.
I don't think I'm going to change, just because I really enjoy the physical action of rolling dice. I wouldn't want to sacrifice for expediency the tension that a chaotic element adds to the battle.
Toronto Dungeon Master
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 11:45AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I use both. At times i will use the static damage and at other times i will use damage roll. I generally prefer the latter though.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 12:09PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
I've been playtesting using nothing but static values for damage to take some of the "swing" out of the game - which my players seem to like for the particular feel of combat and being able to think "I can take a couple more of those unless he crits" rather than how things tend to go when I roll... because I usually roll suprisingly high number on things in a very consistent fashion no matter what dice I roll.
My players like feeling more resilient in D&D than they do in the other games we play - its something that sets D&D apart from the other fantasy games we play where being fragile is part of the feel of the game.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 1:34PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2012
|
I like rolling for damage, because it keeps things a little bit scarier for my players. When an ogre hits someone at level one, I like to watch them wince and pray to Bob I roll minimum. That's part of the fun for my group.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 4:33PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I have played a few sessions now and only use the numbers for damage given in the bestiary.
Ditto. Love the average damage!
Any reason not to roll for damage?
Speed. The DM sets the pace of the game, and switching gears to roll dice affects that pace more than we like to think (for little gain, since the players normally don't derive enjoyment from you rolling). Sure, dice are fun (for the roller), but the DM's duty is to the group (plus the DM has ample opportunity for fun with other things). Keep combat moving fast.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 9:24PM
#10
|
|
|
I'd use the numbers, for speed, for most encounters, but then roll damage for special named monsters or singular "boss" type monsters. Best of both worlds that way, IMO.
Alternatively, it might make the most sense to always use the average numbers when the damage values are relativly low compared to the party's hp, and roll damages when the potential damage can change the fight dramatically.
|
|
|
