Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Yes, if by better off you mean "more likely" to occur.

1d6 (then multiply by 2)

equal chance you get 2/4/6/8/10/12 damage (average 7 damage)

2d6

1/36 chance for 2, 1/36 chance for 12
2/36 chance for 3, 2/36 chance for 11
3/36 chance for 4, 3/36 chance for 10
4/36 chance for 5, 4/36 chance for 9
5/36 chance for 6, 5/36 chance for 8
6/36 chance for 7

Average 7 damage.

Yes, harder to get the extremes but the average damage is the same either way.

That's why I like max damage for the first set, roll for the second (and third as applicable)

So, with a 1d6 weapon doing double damage, you do 1d6+6 for equal chance of 7,8,9,10,11,12 (average 9.5 damage)

Again, not right, not wrong. Just, for me, thematically what a "critical hit" is in my mind.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

I agree with Skarg. We used to always just multiple the number or dice and modifiers. Javelin's 1-1 triple dmg = 3-3. It is a simple solution and really with melee simple is often the better way to go. Also it spreads the damage over a bell curve.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

I've always played that double damage was a damage roll x2 and triple damage was a damage roll x3.

However, I can see now where there are other points of view.

How about a house rule where Double damage is a damage roll x2 or a minimum of 2 points damage and triple damage is a damage roll x3 or a minimum of 3 points damage.

I had other alternate thoughts after reading these posts:

• a crit hit with a saber or shortsword (that can give a negative damage value when crit damaging) might hit the bear in such a way as to 'not do damage' but might slice off enough fur to reduce its armor value in that area to Zero. Next attack on that animal would be at 0 armor.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Unfortunately the only definition is in the example of combat I would probably prefer rolling multiple dice, that does seem to resolve this issue.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Thanks for all the discussion. You've all given me a lot to think about.

For my own games, I'm going to say that any successful hit does at least 1 damage -- this is to cover either Zero or negative damage results from dagger, saber, a thrown rock, sling, small bow, javelin, net, whip, and sha-ken. My rationale here is that you can miss and do no damage, and you can hit someone in armor and do no damage. I think hitting someone without armor and doing no damage is just too much. At the same time, I think a dagger's damage at 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is just fine.

For critical hits, I'm going with roll all the dice and multiply the constants. It seems to me to be the most fair method as it will more likely yield results from the middle of the probability curve (versus the ends).

For the silly stuff, like negative damage, that's not a thing. Although my own strict interpretation of the rules indicates negative damage, or "healing", is very much a thing -- but I am a software engineer and 1d6-2 will result in -1.

Software engineer's spouse says, "Go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, pick up a dozen." So the software engineer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.

I hope I don't embarrass myself in a tournament. :-P

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

It starts to matter a lot when you have something like a swarm of unarmed weak people or a hail of light rocks or something with lots of hits but they only do 1d-4 or something.

In that case, they're designed to usually not do serious damage, but sometimes cause real injury.

Making them all do at least 1 damage in that case is big change in effect.

1d-4 is 0 0 0 0 1 2, or average 0.5 per hit.

1d-4 (min 1) is 1 1 1 1 1 2. or average 1.167 per hit.

Get hit by ten 1d-4 hits, and with no minimum, you probably take about 5 damage. With a minimum 1, you probably take about 12 damage. Big difference.

i.e. Minimum 1 removes the ability to have small damage effects.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Armor accounts for this nicely. Even if the target were only wearing cloth in your example they’d take 1 damage from the entire exchange. And none if they were wearing leather.

In some ways it makes the game less deadly if we allow zero damage on successful hit results. I can see how that would be an advantage, having now played a half dozen attempts at the Death Test.

Still, I feel like the game is more fair if you do damage when you hit, even with a thrown rock.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Against people without no armor or shield at all... :)

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

exactly.


I personally go a little crazy when I get ANY critical hit, and subsequently roll a very low damage,... it's like wtf?

what good is a a heroic critical hit (presumed you slipped your blade in past an opening in his armor, struck a nerve center, etc...) if it results in NO actual damage?

The day that a "regular" strike with a shortsword, especially a marginal hit just squeaking in under your adjDX delivers MORE damage, than your companions heroic "triple" damage critical hit with his two-handed sword, is the day that you say... Really?

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Because addition is associative.