minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

Yes, I noted this was discussed in at least two different threads over five years, but I wish to beat the 'dead horse' about it.

In the Legacy core rules, p.18 & p.24, and again mentioned on p.135, the Magic Fist and Fireball spells do a minimum damage equal to the amount of ST up to three ST for a minimum of 3 damage. This however is not mentioned on p.108 for rolling for damage (not really an issue since it is clearly mentioned in three other places at least).

In the weapons chart p.109-110 has various weapons with a minus to the dice.

Note that the Rapier will one die damage for a minimum of 1 point of damage, while the Saber does 2-2. This is a range of 0 to 10. Sure the Saber does more topside, but why would hitting with what is meant to be a superior weapon doing less?

Look at the Bastard Sword. One-handed it does 2+1 for a minimum of 3 points. Yet using it two-handed it now does less with 3-2 dice, for 1 point minimum?

I find this disjointed for weapon damage progression that some end up being potentially inferior on the minimum when a hit was scored. To me and pulling from under Armor and Shields on p.108, that isn't being successful.

The way I am extrapolating from the Missile Spells would be that the number of dice rolled is the minimum a weapon hit.

This definitely increases the serious nature of multiple shakens against an unarmored foe. The damage range would be 1 to 4, average of 2 points if one considers the minimum of 1 damage (rolling 1 to 6 would be 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, and 4).

The Bastard Sword would one-handed do 3 to 13, and two-handed would do 3 (no back slide) to 16. Progression puts the twohanded sword at 3 to 17.

When I think hit, I think some kind of damage. The mitagating factor ends up being armor which goes a long way when that high DX character throws six shaken your way.

I noted a few people thinking 1 minimal damage on a hit, others stick with a zero is a zero. When contemplating the Missile Spells minimum damage rules, does anyone feel different about weapon minimum damage?

Thanks

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

If you have or are designing a low damage weapon or a creature with a low damage bite or claw, I can see the advantage to keeping damage rolls with a minus-something in them to have fine control of that damage.

For example, a nuisance creature that does an average of 1 hit damage, but you don't want it to always be only 1, you want some variability. To get that you set the damage as 1-1. The six possible rolls adjusted for the -1 become: 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, which results in that average result being 1 hit while permitting it to go as high as 3 hits on a small number of occasions.

So a blanket rule to ignore all results of 0 in all damage rolls takes away that level of fine-tuned control, and I don't think I'd favor that. TBH, some of the stated damages for some of the melee hand weapons in the official Weapons Table could do with a bit of a tweak on a case by case basis. The Bastard Sword example Drakenbow gives is a fine case in point. Rather than changing game rules though, I'd just change the particular weapon's damage where needed. The Bastard Sword damage could change from 2+1/3-2 to being 2+1/2+2 or even 2+1/2+3 just to make the two-handed damage never worse than the one-handed damage.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

Thanks for agreeing it's a good point. In part the problem I see is that damage progression isn't smooth. Low damage for swords vs high damage progressiong.

ST Low High
.9.....1.....6
10....0.....10
11....1.....11
12....2.....12
13....3.....13
13T...1.....16
14T...2.....17
15 -- -- (A slot for the three-handed sword, Munchkin?)
16T...4.....19

ST Low High - using the same process as Missile Spells
.9....1.....6
10...2.....10
11...2.....11
12...2.....12
13...3.....13
13T..3.....16
14T..3.....17
15 -- -- (A slot for the three-handed sword, Munchkin?)
16T..4.....19

.... dang, formating doesn't stay when posted. What's the markup tags for that?

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

One danger of adding some variability to the nuisance creature damage rolls is it might roll a 3. Now something that would normally do 3 pts on a critical success now can do some real damage. This might be a bit more excitement then you want.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

Thanks for listing the damages.
Looking at it this way really shows a much cleaner and dare I say realistic result when using the missile spell application. I like this idea, and I think characters would benefit on the roleplaying side also by not feeling so compelled to find the sword vendor every time they increased their ST.
The potential high-end damage of just 1 pip per ST between cutlass, S. sword, and broadsword seems less of a detriment than the 0 and 1 hit minimums. Plus, the probabilities of getting such low-end results are already increased because of the -1 or -2 modifiers.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

By adding to the minimum damage you are making the saber, mace, short sword and 2-handed sword an even better choice over the hammer, small axe and great hammer.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

hmmm... IMO not really. The Hammer has a liner progression of damage vs the bell curve progression of the two dice of the Saber. Similarly with the Great Hammer with 2+2 has lower bell curve of probably to the min/max than the 2H Sword has with the three dice. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I suspect the average is shifted only a little bit for the Saber, Mace, Short Sword, and 2H Sword.

For example, the Saber it affects only 3 of the 36 possilbe 2d6 combinations. The bigger effect is only when rolling a double or triple damage that it moves a "zero times two or three" to "two points times two or three".

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

I agree with the OP that this topic is a bit of a 'dead horse'... the game rules say that ZERO damage on a hit is a very real possibility with certain weapons or attacks. I don't have a problem with that basic premise. I do have objections with where some of those occurances exist on the weapons table, however. The saber is the most obvious anomaly, but there are other examples of historically effective weapons that deal inferior in-game damage. I'm also not a fan of the missile spell exception granting minimum damage.

Solutions to these perceived issues should be addressed in the house-rules forum IMO.

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

It says (assumption meaning before armor, shield, and other protections)?

This is one of the main reasons I ask as that I don't remember reading this.

thanks

Re: minimal damage by weapons and spells
 

I'm OK with the missile spells doing a minimum amount of damage. I can accept zero damage even for things as written on the weapons table even though I'm not a fan of it. The saber example stands out. I can't tell you how many times I rolled a 1 for zero damage with a small bow. I've had spectacular hits that did 0 damage.

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