Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-05-2019, 12:10 PM   #11
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

It's a trade-off between more or less likelihood of extreme results versus average doubled or tripled results.

We always rolled more dice. That also has the advantage of making more specific damage numbers possible (e.g. if you triple the result, the only possible damage amounts are multiples of three: 3, 6, 9, 12... never 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11...). (And the most important consideration: the fun, awe rumble and vibration of many dice pouring onto the table!)

There is actually at least one published example I know of that shows multiplying the dice, but it's buried inside Death Test, where it says that 1d-2 torches hitting creatures who take double damage from fire would be rolled as 2d-4.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 02:27 PM   #12
kjamma4
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland Area, Illinois
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Another method, which is a variant in D&D 5e, when doubling damage is to have the first "set" do max damage and roll the second set.
kjamma4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2019, 03:18 PM   #13
amenditman
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Florida Peninsula, Earth, Sol Sytem
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjamma4 View Post
Another method, which is a variant in D&D 5e, when doubling damage is to have the first "set" do max damage and roll the second set.
That could add some fun results, but more single hit crit hit kills.
__________________
The first rule of GMing
"If you make it, players will break it"
amenditman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 01:56 AM   #14
xane
 
xane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London, UK
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
It's a trade-off between more or less likelihood of extreme results versus average doubled or tripled results.
If you think about it, taking your fire example, 1d-2 has ~33% chance of no damage, a straight doubling retains that chance, whereas 2d-4 has only ~16% chance of no damage.
xane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2019, 01:07 AM   #15
Original_Carl
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Donít weapon hits always do at least one point of damage, excepting armor? Thatís how Iíve been playing 1d6 -2 otherwise a successful hit with a dagger could potentially heal you (unless you were wearing armor). A critical could restore up to 3 ST.
Original_Carl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2019, 01:25 AM   #16
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Carl View Post
Donít weapon hits always do at least one point of damage, excepting armor? Thatís how Iíve been playing 1d6 -2 otherwise a successful hit with a dagger could potentially heal you (unless you were wearing armor). A critical could restore up to 3 ST.
We always played that if you rolled 2d-2 (for example) and rolled a 2, then that was zero damage. I'd never considered a negative damage number could be construed as "healing". That's funny :)
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2019, 10:44 AM   #17
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Carl View Post
Donít weapon hits always do at least one point of damage, excepting armor? Thatís how Iíve been playing 1d6 -2 otherwise a successful hit with a dagger could potentially heal you (unless you were wearing armor). A critical could restore up to 3 ST.
No, in TFT the damage can come out to zero without armor.

Otherwise, there would be no way to represent hits that might do injury but likely won't seriously hurt someone.

(Allowing hits that don't cause significant damage does not imply "healing" hits.)
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2019, 11:34 AM   #18
kjamma4
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland Area, Illinois
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

Perhaps the confusion came about as the result of the example of the Magic Fist spell where the minimum damage after subtraction cannot go below the ST put into the spell?
kjamma4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2019, 12:51 AM   #19
Original_Carl
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

The issue isnít addressed specifically in the rules except for magic, as in the case of the missile spells.

I just reread Advanced Combat, ITL p.108 Rolling for Damage, and they really should have put a Zero damage example in there. Can anyone cite a Zero damage result from the books? Or maybe some from SJG could speak to this.

Otherwise, for my own games, Iím doing min 1 damage on a successful hit. Can you imagine rolling three 1s with your dagger, javelin or club and getting no damage? If that were a video game, I would be tempted to throw my controller.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies so far.
Original_Carl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2019, 02:51 PM   #20
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: New Pole Weapon Rules

I don't think there are any examples, because I don't think only one character ever attacks with a weapon that can do zero damage in an example - Melio, who is mostly trying to avoid combat without getting noticed, and only makes one attack and misses (ITL page 129).

However I think standard math gives the answer. Minimum 1 would be an exception to the math and want mentioning. (The new Legacy Edition missile spell minimum for example is an exception that also implies otherwise there is no minimum.)

There are not very many weapons which can roll zero damage:
Daggers used outside HTH.
Daggers used by people in HTH with ST 8 or less.
Thrown rocks.
Whips.
Javelins not used in a charge.
Sabers (2d-2)
Slings.
Small bows.
Nets.
Sha-ken.
Bare hands.

It seems to me those are appropriate weapons to have a possibility of not doing significant damage, and that adding a minimum damage of 1 reduces the significance of the intentional differences between them, especially in the case of weaker ones such as a weak person making a bare-hands attack - making those do minimum 1 damage would make them significantly more dangerous (it seems appropriate that many unskilled physical attacks by not-so-strong people could hit but not really hurt someone).

As for some players being frustrated or dreading the possibility (1 in 216, many times less likely than dropping or breaking your weapon) of doing no damage with three 1d-1 attacks in a row, I'd prefer a remedy of suggesting such players opt for more damaging attacks - even a weakling can spend $100 to get a fine dagger that will do 1d+0.

(If house-ruling, one might consider specific weapons which might get a minimum and others not. For example in GURPS, only cutting and impaling weapons get a minimum. I might consider a minimum for Javelins and Small Bows before daggers, before other types, myself.)

Last edited by Skarg; 07-17-2019 at 02:55 PM.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.