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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

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

I find it very fascinating how we all have different takes on so many of the rules.

Since TFT makes no distinction between damage types, and I see no reason to single out weapons such as the cutlass to possibly do zero damage, I have thought that the minimum damage on any damage roll is one, even for bare hands.

I’m not claiming this is the “only” or “best” or “correct” way to rule on this. I just don’t see TFT making any distinction on damage types, so if I don’t want a cutlass to do zero damage, then I feel a need to have bare hands also do a minimum of one damage.

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

Yeah, it is interesting. What I actually don't like is the opposite: weapons that always do at least 1 damage, or worse, that do a high minimum damage. Having hit things with axe and sword and just bumped the target with the side of the blade or scratched the surface or something, I like the possibility of light effects, and don't like people always being able to count on doing a certain amount of damage. Though, I don't usually play with house rules to achieve that, except in computer versions.

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

Like so many things, it all depends on what kind of game you want.

I have found that most folks tweak the RAW in some manner or other, to make the game perform the way they want it to perform for them.

Kind of like when the recipe is: "Seasoned to Taste"; which someone expressed so well earlier today.

JK

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

I agree with Skarg on this -- it seems to me the intent of the rule is pretty self-evident, and I wouldn't want to tamper with it.

Having said that, I really like Rick's idea for differing damage amounts and modifiers based on the weapon type (with wildly varying damages possible for a specific category of weapons ("impaling" versus "bludgeoning").

I have previously requested he post his revised weapons table here to show us what he means in detail, but so far he hasn't done so. Maybe if one of you asks him?

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

GURPS has concussive, slashing, and piercing damage types. If I wanted that level of detail in TFT, I would simply play GURPS instead. I prefer to keep TFT simple. However, I will support anyone else adding this detail to their game if it makes them happy.

I have been thinking about a master table that shows the relationship of ST to bare-hand damage, HTH damage, Unarmed Combat damage, one-hand weapon damage, and two-hand weapon damage. You would be able to look at the table to see how much damage you could do, and it wouldn’t matter whether the weapon was a sword or an axe.

It would not need to become part of the rules, but it could be helpful. It might also be of use in the thread about bare-hand attacks and the ST-based damage table. If I can get it together, I would post it.

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

I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to explain someone else's idea here, but the reason I like the idea behind Rick's Weapons table (and this assumes here that I understood his original explanation of it), is because the ONLY thing it changes is the nature of the damage inflicted by the various weapons, and it does so by changing the number of potential damage points inflicted by a given weapon. So, instead of Broadsword being 2d, it becomes 3d-6 -- because it's a "stabby" weapon instead of a "beaty" one. In effect, piercing weapons have the potential to do much greater (or much less) damage as they strive to penetrate vital organs and either hit or miss them, while crushing weapons do lower levels of overall damage, but are much more consistent in their results (because they're going to crush something, no matter where they hit).

This seems like an elegant solution to the issue of differing types of damage that requires precisely zero additional rules. All it does is change the number of dice rolled on the weapons table. Not a single other rule needs to change.

Again, this presupposes that I'm describing his weapons table accurately; but we have to remember I'm going off one brief explanation, his recent example here above, and no actual readings of his table. If I'm correct in my interpretation, however, then this would actually be a potentially brilliant solution to a situation that GURPS requires several pages of rules to describe...

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

Hi JLV, everyone.
Thanks for the kind words JLV.

I didn't post my weapon's table because it is too big and complicated for the new TFT, I can not imagine that Steve would consider it. I've tried hard not to clutter up this forum with impossible suggestions.

If I were to suggest two changes to the TFT weapon table they would be:

1) Bows do one less damage across the board. Being able to project damage is huge, and bows are pretty easy to get to shoot twice per turn, DOUBLING their damage compared to regular weapons. I've lowered their damage and they still get used.. a lot.

2) Two handed weapons do an extra point of damage. Giving up a shield is a big deal (especially since I think Steve has said he will give a talent to beef up shields), and having two hands for leverage should do more damage.

Warm regards, Rick.

Rick's Piercing Weapons.
 

Hi JLV,
Yes you are correct. Steve Jackson wrote long ago that a rapier could do more damage than a broad sword, but he was going to ignore that and keep TFT simple. But WHY could a rapier do more damage? Well if it pierced a vital organ or major artery you would die fast. Of course most pokes would not hit anything critical and the small hole does less tissue trauma than a large cut.

I decided that 'piercing' weapons tended to do either a lot or a little damage.

So I went thru my weapon table and made piercing weapons do damage like 3d-6. So the range of possible damage goes up a lot. Quite often they do little or no damage, but once in a while they do a LOT of damage.

Where as blunt impact weapons and cutting weapons do damage like 1d+3. Much more predictable.

I like this. NO new rules at all. But the weapon table has more variety and some weapons are more 'swingy' than others.

***
Post Script.

JLV, if you wanted to look at my weapon's list for your own interest, rather than suggesting I submit it to the forum for consideration, you can find it here on the Brainiac site.

https://tft.brainiac.com/RicksTFT/We...loadableFiles/

(Since that was posted, I've revised the table again. More daggers, and I've beefed up pole weapons a bit. Gunpowder weapons have been moved into a 12 page supplement. I need to put the updated rules on the page some time.)

Warm regards, Rick

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

I'm happy that some Weapons can do zero damage in the RAW, never had a problem with that, its more about the maximum and average damage of a weapon. So a broadsword is Max 12 Average 7. A Cutlass is Max 10 Average 5. The fact that a cutlass may occasionally do zero damage doesn't bother me.

I've added all sorts of flavour and details to the weapons rules over the years but anything along these lines should be kept out of the base rules and reserved for Advanced options because they won't suit everyone.

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

I like Steve's "keep it simple" approach even though the wargamer in me cries out for more detail. I even made up a table of ST-based damage for bare hands, daggers, clubs, etc., so I could satisfy myself that it was balanced, but it is too big to fit in the comment window. Maybe with some reformatting I could condense it enough to fit since I was pretty generous with my spacing.

Anyway, I could see the value in changing how damage is inflicted or calculated, but if any weapon can do zero damage, then I would like all weapons to have a chance of doing zero damage.

It all depends on perspective and how much detail is added. I would say that a blunt weapon can actually do zero damage too, because if it just barely grazes the surface of the skin, it might not even leave much of a bruise.

But a sharp blade can barely nick the jugular vein or some major artery and cause potentially lethal bleeding without doing massive damage to tissue or bone.

I think my only point is that Steve ought to leave things simple in the rules because we can always house-rule the game to our heart's content.

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

Thanks for the link -- plenty of food for thought there, but I definitely see what you mean.

I had envisioned your table as simply being the existing weapons table with the damages modified to take into account piercing/cutting/crushing damage for the existing weapons. I didn't realize how enormously you had expanded it.

Again, thanks for sharing.

In principle, I still think the idea has great merit, and if such a revised table (simply replacing existing damages with ones revised to reflect the nature of the weapon itself, rather than a simple mathematical progression of damage types), I think it would be an excellent way of demonstrating those differences without otherwise affecting any other rule.

Re: Rick's Piercing Weapons.
 

Rick, question on the crewed siege weapon.
You note "Often an extra crew member does not reload the weapon, only
fires it. This person does not need the minimum ST."
Would this be an officer? You would still be using the Firer's Dx, is that correct?

Re: Rick's Piercing Weapons.
 

Hi JohnPaulB,
The idea was that you had a very high DX figure who aimed it. He does not need the minimum ST to reload. The cost is that this adds an extra crew member to the team.

This high DX firer could be an officer, but he does not have to be.

Warm regards, Rick.

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

I play that a Cutlass 2d-2 capability (or similar weapon) that results in a 0, is a hit that doesn't hurt the person: A thin scar on the face, a sliced boot, an arrow impaling the bible in his pocket and bruising his chest, being hit by the flat part of the blade, could be some examples.

Perhaps a way to include the damage concept, but not making it permanent, is to make it a Fatigue damage.

• Joe hits Sam with his cutlass, rolls a 3 and 1 point of damage goes into Sam.
  
• Joe hits Sam with his cutlass, rolls a 2 and 0 points of damage goes into Sam. Convert that 0 damage to 1 point of fatigue.

This rare instance of a 0 damage roll now has some effect, a bruise perhaps or just being winded, and the fatigue contributes to the risk of dying. It can't be healed away, but its not permanent either.

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

I've toyed with the idea of a minimum of 1 point of damage for damage rolls that have a negative component but have simply left it at a minimum of 0 points damage. The Magic Fist spell specifically states minimum damage equal to the ST put into the spell. So, unless otherwise stated, minimum damage of 0. If a GM wanted to put a minimum of 1 point damage on such rolls, I wouldn't call that as being wrong-headed on it. We experimented with minimum damage of 1 point in our Classic TFT days and it didn't disrupt the balance of the universe. However, we tended to stick with the minimum of 0 unless otherwise stated approach. The thought was that there are times that even a hit would yield 0 points of damage for a variety of reasons such as the ones that you mentioned.

Your idea of a 0 point hit causing 1 point of fatigue is very interesting -- I never looked at it from that angle. It does have the same general effect in combat as a minimum damage of 1 and becomes another point of accounting that the GM and players must take on. So, it is up for a GM rule so far as what they are willing to do.

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

I'm OK with idea that certain weapons have the potential for ZERO damage on a successful hit, but I've always thought it was a mistake to put weapons like the cutlass/saber, javelins and the short bow in that category.

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

I've replaced 1d-2 with 1d4, 1d-1 with d5, 1d+1 with d7... etc. I've got loads of DCC dice kicking around and wanted to use them in my games.

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

That's a heck of an upgrade.

1d6 - 2 has an average damage of 10/6 = 1.66. 1d6 - 2 with a minimum 1 has an average damage of 12/6 = 2. 1d4 has an average damage of 2.5.

Note that a 1d5 damage roll has an average result of 3 hits, which isn't all that much better than the 1d4.

And 1d6 + 1 is downgraded from 4.5 average damage to 4 average damage on the other hand.

It's fine if you're okay with changed the expected damage, of course. It's your game. But it is worth noticing that moving from, say, the 1d javelin to the 1d+1 spear is less beneficial in your games. And also, throwing a rock using your rules (average damage 2.5) is a lot closer to using a dagger (average damage 3). According to RAW, the rock has an average damage 1.66 while the dagger has an average damage 15/6 = 2.5.

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

You are correct. It alters the average weapon damage. I've tweaked damage here and there to compensate somewhat, but it will never match the original rules. We find the combat enjoyable still. Steve did a great job with this system... even when we hacked the weapon damage/armor save rules to use polyhedral dice instead of modifiers/constant DR the game still delivers. Pretty solid design.

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

I stick with the rules. Some weapons will sometimes do zero damage.

If someone is so unfortunate to roll a zero damage attack after scoring a critical hit (double or triple damage), I "round it up" to 1 point of damage. That is 1 damage after doubling/tripling). This is the only variance I do now with weapon damage.