Re: Minimum Weapon Damage?
 

Yes I am of the opinion that the minimum should be 1 point if you hit with a weapon not 0. I mean if I stab someone with a dagger they are going to take damage if I hit them I would think.

Re: Minimum Weapon Damage?
 

What about armor?

I could see an exception to the minimum damage = 0 concept, for, say, poisoned weapons -- in those cases, if you hit (even a character in armor), there should be at least some chance that the poison could take effect, even if the damage from the physical attack is 0.

Re: Minimum Weapon Damage?
 

If they have armor on then of course it is subtracted and can resulting in the damage being stopped by the armor but you still did damage. It just seems “wrong” counter intuitive to me to succeed on your roll to hit but roll 0 damage.

Re: Minimum Weapon Damage?
 

I'm not sure why you feel that way though. I've been in a number of fist-fights (in my MUCH younger -- and stupider -- days) and have frequently seen "hits" landed where zero damage was done. And that's the most likely situation in which this issue will crop up.

Re: Minimum Weapon Damage?
 

Don't think of it as "no damage" but rather as "no damage that contributes to death". You may have given the opponent a black eye or some bruises but these will not be fatal. This can lead to some good role-playing -does it arouse sympathy or revulsion?