Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1?

flankspeed · 08-01-2018, 08:14 AM

Weapons such as the Cutlass do 2D-2 damage, and bare hands can conceivably do 1D-2 damage or less. When such modifiers reduce the damage rolled to 0 or less, does the attack do a minimum of 1 Hit, or can the modifier actually make a damage roll do 0 Hits before armor is taken into consideration?

I looked in the Damage Roll sections of Melee and Advanced Melee, but could not find a ruling on this. GURPS seems to distinguish blunt and edged/pointed damage rolls as being different, but TFT makes no such distinction.

Does anyone know what the rules-as-written intend? If not, then how have you ruled on this?

luguvalium · 08-01-2018, 09:28 AM

My house rule was that a fighter with advanced training always did at least one point of damage.

Rick_Smith · 08-01-2018, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flankspeed

... Does anyone know what the rules-as-written intend? If not, then how have you ruled on this?

Hi Flankspeed,
In the rules as written weapons can do zero damage. There is no distinction between piercing and cutting damage.

In my campaign, weapons that do deep punctures, do damage like 3d-6 and those that do cuts or big trauma do damage like 1d+2. No new rules, but piercing weapons do a wider range of damage and tend to be more 'swingier'.

Warm regards, Rick.

The Wyzard · 08-01-2018, 09:36 AM

If you wanted to rule that any successful hit did at least one damage (perhaps before applying warrior/veteran/armor reduction), it wouldn't actually break anything.

Anomylous · 08-01-2018, 09:54 AM

I think it would be reasonable to say it depends on the weapon type. Maybe any sharp or pointy weapon will do at least 1 point of damage if it hits, but a bare-handed attack or simple club can roll a 0 for damage.

~~Jim Kane~~ · 08-01-2018, 12:04 PM

We play it that attacks against an unarmored figure do a minimum of 1 pip of damage; so that way - especially bare-handed - it does not take all night to beat the typical tavern scum into unconsciousness. Also, with a 1 pip of damage minimum, it allows you to generally not kill typical tavern scum... unintentionally.

JK

Skarg · 08-01-2018, 12:43 PM

(Note that the Taking Prisoners rule in AM already says that you can do full-damage bare handed attacks that won't take anyone to 0 unless you are trying to kill them.)

~~Jim Kane~~ · 08-01-2018, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarg

(Note that the Taking Prisoners rule in AM already says that you can do full-damage bare handed attacks that won't take anyone to 0 unless you are trying to kill them.)

Understood; but sometimes it is just so much more satisfying to whack tavern scum with the flat of a Battle Ax, for 1/2 damage first, before punching their lights out for the night. ;-)

JK

Dave Crowell · 08-01-2018, 04:30 PM

I've always played that a hit does a minimum of 1 point of damage, although that can be blocked by armour. So 1d-1 would score damage as 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I can see that the intent of RAW may have been that damage scores reduced below 0 may have been intended to do 0. So a 3d-6 attack would score 0-12 hits, with rolls of 3-6 scoring 0.

Skarg · 08-01-2018, 06:16 PM

I think it's entirely clear that the original intention was that 1d-1 can do 0 damage, and that a 1d-4 attack does 0 0 0 0 1 2.

I would keep it that way, because I think adding a minimum 1 damage would cause some subtle side effects that I don't think I'd want.

The difference in damage between low-damage attacks that do 1d-5, 1d-4, or 1d-3 would be greatly reduced, but only for people with zero armor. That's the main thing that seems off to me, because I think the things that do little damage are meant to do that little, and minimum damage would throw that off.

One thing I sort of like is that (assuming armor can still reduce damage to 0 by equaling damage) it would make wearing armor more effective than it used to be compared to being unarmored.

What I'd really do of course is use GURPS, where cutting & impaling weapons do have a minimum 1 point which can be stopped by light armor, but crushing weapons do not. But in that case, the weapon amounts have been thoughtfully designed with that rule in mind and are already typed.

08-01-2018, 08:14 AM	#1
flankspeed Join Date: Jul 2018	Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1? Weapons such as the Cutlass do 2D-2 damage, and bare hands can conceivably do 1D-2 damage or less. When such modifiers reduce the damage rolled to 0 or less, does the attack do a minimum of 1 Hit, or can the modifier actually make a damage roll do 0 Hits before armor is taken into consideration? I looked in the Damage Roll sections of Melee and Advanced Melee, but could not find a ruling on this. GURPS seems to distinguish blunt and edged/pointed damage rolls as being different, but TFT makes no such distinction. Does anyone know what the rules-as-written intend? If not, then how have you ruled on this? __________________ "What you don't know can't hurt y ... OUCH!"

08-01-2018, 09:28 AM	#2
luguvalium Join Date: Dec 2017	Re: Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1? My house rule was that a fighter with advanced training always did at least one point of damage.

08-01-2018, 09:36 AM	#4
The Wyzard Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1? If you wanted to rule that any successful hit did at least one damage (perhaps before applying warrior/veteran/armor reduction), it wouldn't actually break anything.

08-01-2018, 09:54 AM	#5
Anomylous Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1? I think it would be reasonable to say it depends on the weapon type. Maybe any sharp or pointy weapon will do at least 1 point of damage if it hits, but a bare-handed attack or simple club can roll a 0 for damage.

08-01-2018, 12:04 PM	#6
~~Jim Kane~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2018	Re: Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1? We play it that attacks against an unarmored figure do a minimum of 1 pip of damage; so that way - especially bare-handed - it does not take all night to beat the typical tavern scum into unconsciousness. Also, with a 1 pip of damage minimum, it allows you to generally not kill typical tavern scum... unintentionally. JK

08-01-2018, 12:43 PM	#7
Skarg Join Date: May 2015	Re: Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1? (Note that the Taking Prisoners rule in AM already says that you can do full-damage bare handed attacks that won't take anyone to 0 unless you are trying to kill them.)

08-01-2018, 04:30 PM	#9
Dave Crowell Join Date: Jun 2012	Re: Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1? I've always played that a hit does a minimum of 1 point of damage, although that can be blocked by armour. So 1d-1 would score damage as 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I can see that the intent of RAW may have been that damage scores reduced below 0 may have been intended to do 0. So a 3d-6 attack would score 0-12 hits, with rolls of 3-6 scoring 0.

08-01-2018, 06:16 PM	#10
Skarg Join Date: May 2015	Re: Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1? I think it's entirely clear that the original intention was that 1d-1 can do 0 damage, and that a 1d-4 attack does 0 0 0 0 1 2. I would keep it that way, because I think adding a minimum 1 damage would cause some subtle side effects that I don't think I'd want. The difference in damage between low-damage attacks that do 1d-5, 1d-4, or 1d-3 would be greatly reduced, but only for people with zero armor. That's the main thing that seems off to me, because I think the things that do little damage are meant to do that little, and minimum damage would throw that off. One thing I sort of like is that (assuming armor can still reduce damage to 0 by equaling damage) it would make wearing armor more effective than it used to be compared to being unarmored. What I'd really do of course is use GURPS, where cutting & impaling weapons do have a minimum 1 point which can be stopped by light armor, but crushing weapons do not. But in that case, the weapon amounts have been thoughtfully designed with that rule in mind and are already typed.