Min ST penalties
 

Legacy ITL says that if you lack the ST required for a weapon (excepting crossbows):

If your ST is less than that required for the weapon you are using, your DX is -1 for each ST point you lack, and the damage done is -1 for each 2 ST (round damage down) that you lack.

So how does the round down work? If you are 1 ST less, is damage at -1?

If 3 ST less, is damage at -2 or -1?

Now for Crossbows, damage is not changed, but the -1 DX penalty for every ST point lacking remains.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

The final damage is rounded down towards negative infinity.
So lacking 3 ST is -2 damage and -3 DX.

C.f. the Flinger article at TFT Companion page 15.

Hopefully I'll make the Professional thief takes down Flinger video soonish.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

I beg to disagree with Henry. What is called for (in determining the damage penalty) is taking the number of ST points you are short (say 3) dividing it by 2 (resulting in 1.5), and rounding that result down (dropping the .5) resulting in this case for a penalty of 1.

A better way all such rules could be worded is to say "For every 2 whole entire points you are short (or ahead), apply a penalty (or bonus) of 1." Use of the word "round" can be ambiguous depending on sentence structure, but to say "for every 2 whole points" or "for every 3 whole points" is always clear.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

So a character with 1 ST below the minimum would have no damage penalty then if we round down.

I agree that this rule could have been worded more precisely.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

That is correct!

Re: Min ST penalties
 

At ITL 107 it is the damage and not the modifier that is rounded down so lacking 1 ST means -1 to the damage the weapon does.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

I agree with Henry.

Per ITL, the resultant damage is rounded down. The modifier is not rounded down that would result in a little more damage. At least, that's what the logic of the verbiage used indicates.

Now, if one thinks that this is too draconian of an interpretation, GMs can house rule it the direction that Steve stated. I don't think that it would disrupt the balance of the TFT universe provided that it is applied consistently.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

I still have to disagree Bill, because the damage assigned is always 1, 2, 3, etc. -- it's what you're determining (determining last). You can't round down a whole number!

It's the modifier (ST amount you are short divided by 2) that can result in a fraction whenever the ST difference is an odd number.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

When do you ever round damage down since damage rolls usually results in integer numbers?

The only time damage is halved is when "pulling" blows for non-lethal combat.

I guess I don't understand why that verbiage "(round damage down)" is even there unless it refers to the rounding the lack of ST's damage effect per what Steve said.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

It's 2d minus one half, rounded down. Which is simply 2d-1

Re: Min ST penalties
 

Typically when you round down, a 0.5 or half becomes zero.

The reason I'm asking this is in the quick reference cards released for Warlock Knight, there are NPCs whose strength is 1 less than required for their weapons and damage is normal, so is there errata needed or is it correct? DX is also not listed as being modified explicitly for attacks either.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

This would be better as a communication directly to Gaming Ballistic via Backerkit or email rather than starting a thread on the forums. It's probably simply a mistake.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

Late pledges can't post on backerkit and I have sent you and David Pulver emails about this via the forum messaging system earlier this week on Monday, 7/22/2024.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

I certainly never received anything - just looked. I’ll check with David but we’ve been in contact all week and he hasn’t mentioned anything.

I’ll bring up the late pledge thing on the Backerkit discord. I’d expect all pledged backers at any time to be able to use the system(s).

Re: Min ST penalties
 

I sent you an email directly to the gmail address backerkit support gave me as well, and I had sent the direct email via the SJ Games forum system on Monday. Possibly those emails are out-dated?

Re: Min ST penalties
 

Odd. Let me check with Backerkit. One of those should have reached me. Which NPC or set of NPCs has the issue?

Re: Min ST penalties
 

ITL p.107 "...your DX is -1 for each ST point you lack, and the damage done is -1 for each 2 ST (round damage down) that you lack."

It is fairly clear to me that this sentence says it is -1 dam. per 2 ST.
A ST-9 warrior swinging a ST-12 broadsword (normally a 2d6 damage) does 2d-1 damage NOT 2d-2

Re: Min ST penalties
 

The result is that a ST 11, DX 13 character with a Broadsword does 2d-1 at adjDX 12 for the swing and is therefore "worse" than the ST 12, DX 12 character who does 2d at adjDX 12.

As Molly says (https://www.hcobb.com/tft/Molly.html) "ST dumping never pays!"

Re: Min ST penalties
 

TFT is about tradeoffs so a ST11 DX13 character who chooses a broadsword vs a shortsword should have some potential benefit, more damage vs lower chance to hit.

If the interpretation that damage is -1 for 1 less ST and DX -1, then the player might as well use a shortsword with no dx penalty and equal damage.

The phrase round down supports that interpretation in that fractions are dropped and 1 less ST results in no damage reduction and only -1 DX.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

^^^^ THAT ^^^^ Perfectly put.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

The text isn't too clear.

You're right that it says -1 for every 2 ST, which suggests that if you're under-strength by 1, then there is no penalty for the damage.

Bill is reading it as dividing (minST - actualST) by 2 as the penalty, subtracting and rounding down, so being under-strength by 1 results in a 1 penalty to damage. That's how I read it initially, because I focused on the parenthetical rounding down text, which is irrelevant on your reading.

But I guess I can't see a reason to choose one interpretation over the other.

Re: Min ST penalties
 

You guessed correctly about my interpretation. I was focusing on the language in the parentheses. I concur with your assessment that the wording isn't clear. Or, as mathematically clear as it needs to be. The proper way to result in my interpretation would be to state it as, 'The final damage result should be truncated to the nearest integer.' Thus it forces the final result to round down or chop off any fractional value.

That's why I didn't have a problem with Steve's interpretation either as long as it consistently applied. In most cases, we are quibbling over one point of damage. In my normal writings, my audience demands more exact mathematical language.