Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

Apologies.. by "say" what I mean is that the effect of the rules seem pretty clear that ZERO damage is a valid outcome for certain weapons. How else should one interpret 1d-2 or 1d-4 damage?

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

Well, one could read that 1d-4 a valid out come would be -3 and that puts -3 damage on the target vice 3 damage. To me a hit means it hit - a roll for damage should not back slide to doing no damage, especially when an inferior weapon (ie lower ST) has a better minimum. To me the statement under Missile Spells makes it more clear that a hit will means damage of somekind. A Saber doing no damage (before armor) while a Rapier would on minimal damage makes zero sense in logical progression.

So, please, don't suggest things are "pretty clear" when I wouldn't be asking if they were clear. That's rather insulting.

Original comment
On p.108 at the bottom of the section of Armor and Shields it has "By extrpolating from these examples, GMs should be able to make logical decisions in cases where characters are faced with some unusual form of damage"

I really am trying to get a feel for people's understanding and why they take the rules there. Not get attacked for things you feel are "pretty clear" when actually they are not when considering logically the RAW for Missile Spells. Hence, the question.

Now back to the forum with more polite answers instead of questioning intelligence?

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

I apologize if my statement came across that way. That was not my intent. I did add the word "seem", but obviously I should've made it more clear that the interpretation was my own.

I don't agree that the language around missile spells can be used as guidance for other weapons or use-cases, but I absolutely agree that several weapon listings make no sense. I rewrote a good chunk of the Weapons Table to fix such issues for my table, but that clearly falls into the realm of house-rules.

There's also a practical design reason for ZERO damage results IMO (not as many as the rules support, but retaining a few instances seems reasonable to me)... the limited nature of character ST. If every attack did a minimum of 1-point damage, some fights would be much shorter.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

Would you apply the same min-damage variant against figures who have thin human skin without clothing over it?

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

At the low end, a minimum damage of 1 instead of 0 makes a big difference. A dagger has average damage of 2.5 if the minimum is 0, but it rises to 2.666 if the minimum is 1. No big deal, but a sling (1d-2) goes from an average of 1.66 to 2 hits per successful attack. That's starting to make a difference.

A thrown rock (or a ST 8 punch) goes from 0.5 hits on average to 1.166. That's a big leap.

For 2d-2, the change is inconsequential, going from 5 hits to 5.0277 hits.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

That's why I really don't have a problem with the possibility of some weapons having 0 damage even though I find it a bit bothersome. Fencer talent brings a saber up to a minimum of 1. Weapon expertise has the same effect on a short sword. It would give the weaker characters that can't wield a blade larger than a dagger some help. In the end, per the numbers that you just presented, none of it really makes a huge difference.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

I don't mind the minimum being zero.

I do mind it being zero when a double or triple damage is scored. I think I will adopt a minimum of 1 ONLY when double or triple happens.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

I'm moving my "home brew" suggestion over to house rules.

https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=193123